Abstract:Introduction: Hypospadias is a syndrome of penile maldevelopment. The primary goal of hypospadias surgery is to create a penis with normal appearance and function. Historically, the outcome of hypospadias repair has been assessed based on the need for reoperation due to urethroplasty complications (UC), including fistula formation, dehiscence, meatal stenosis, or development of a urethral stricture. The Glans–Urethral Meatus–Shaft (GMS) score is a standardized tool to predict UC. Analysis of the cosmetic outcomes of hypospadias repair based on the appearance of the reconstructed penis has been validated, and standardized scores have been published. The Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score is a validated questionnaire used to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes. Although predictors of surgical outcomes and UC have been well documented, predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes are lacking in the literature. Furthermore, reoperation due to cosmetic considerations has been poorly reported. Objective: To identify predictors of cosmetic outcomes after hypospadias repair and to assess the reoperation rate according to cosmetic considerations. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study included 126 boys who underwent primary hypospadias repair. The severity of hypospadias, degree of penile curvature, glans width, preoperative HOPE, and GMS scores were documented. The standard technique for single-stage repairs, the tubularized incised plate urethroplasty, was performed. The primary endpoint was cosmetic outcomes evaluated by the HOPE score questionnaire six months postoperatively. Optimal cosmetic results were defined by HOPE scores ≥ 57. Results: The study population consisted of the following cases: 87 (69%) subcoronal, 32 (25%) shaft, and 7 (6%) proximal hypospadias. Among the study participants, 102 boys (81%) had optimal cosmetic results (HOPE ≥ 57), and 24 boys (19%) had surgeries with suboptimal cosmetic outcomes (HOPE < 57). Ancillary procedures were performed in 21 boys (16%), of which 14 (11%) were solely for cosmetic considerations, and 7 were secondary to UC. Using the Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis of potential predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes, the preoperative HOPE score had the highest area under the curve (AUC = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.89, p < 0.001). After multivariable analysis, the degree of penile chordee (p = 0.013), glans width (p = 0.003), GMS score (p = 0.007), and preoperative HOPE score (p = 0.002) were significant predictors of cosmetic outcomes. Although meatal location predicted suboptimal cosmetic results in univariate analysis, it was not a factor in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Over 80% of boys undergoing hypospadias repair achieved optimal cosmetic outcomes. More than 10% of cases underwent ancillary procedures, secondary solely to cosmetic considerations. Predictors of optimal cosmetic outcomes after hypospadias surgery included degree of chordee, glans width, and preoperative HOPE and GMS scores, which were the best predictors of satisfactory cosmetic results. Although meatal location is the main predictor of UC, it was not a predictor for cosmetic outcomes. Factors affecting cosmetic outcomes should be clearly explained to parents during the preoperative consultation.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper primarily explores the predictive factors for aesthetic outcomes after hypospadias repair surgery and evaluates the reoperation rate based on aesthetic considerations. Hypospadias is a condition of abnormal male genital development, and the main goal of surgery is to create a penis that appears and functions normally. Historically, the success of the surgery has been assessed mainly based on whether reoperation was needed due to urethroplasty complications (UC), but in recent years, attention to the aesthetic outcomes of the repair has gradually increased. The paper uses a prospective cohort study method, including 126 boys who underwent initial hypospadias repair surgery as study subjects. The study used two scoring tools: the Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score and the Glans–Urethral Meatus–Shaft (GMS) score. The HOPE score is used to assess the postoperative appearance of the penis, while the GMS score is used to assess the severity of hypospadias. The main findings of the study include: - More than 80% of patients achieved desirable aesthetic outcomes (HOPE score ≥57 points). - About 11% of patients underwent additional surgery for aesthetic reasons. - The degree of hypospadias (curvature), glans width, preoperative HOPE, and GMS scores are important predictors of aesthetic outcomes. - Although the location of the urethral opening is one of the main predictors of urethroplasty complications, it is not a factor affecting aesthetic outcomes. In summary, the study identified key factors that can predict the aesthetic outcomes after hypospadias repair surgery and pointed out that these factors should be clearly communicated to the parents of patients during preoperative consultations. Additionally, the study emphasized the situations where reoperation based on aesthetic considerations occurs and quantified its frequency.

Use of Validated Questionnaires to Predict Cosmetic Outcomes of Hypospadias Repair

Adulthood cosmetic and sexual outcomes of the patients who underwent hypospadias repair in childhood

Understanding health-related quality of life after hypospadias repair: A qualitative study with pre-adolescent males and parents

Penile Appearance, Sexual Function and Sexual Satisfaction of Hypospadias Patients after Surgery:A Long-Term Follow-Up Study

Scrotal Flaps for Skin Deficit Correction After Failed Hypospadias Repair

(012) Sexual Dysfunction in Men After Failed Hypospadias Repair

[Long-term outcomes after hypospadias surgery: Sexual reported outcomes and quality of life in adulthood]

Expert classification of hypospadias: an external validation and evaluation of agreement for Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) and Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) scores

Comment to "identification of Risk Factors Associated with Numerous Reoperations Following Primary Hypospadias Repair"

Predictors of surgical complications in boys with hypospadias: data from an internationa registry

Primary hypospadias repair outcomes: results from a retrospective cohort of 292 children

General Considerations in Hypospadias Surgery

Hypospadias-associated penile curvature assessment and management: a global survey of current practice

Surgical treatment of hypospadias with lichen sclerosus: Long‐term outcomes from a single center

Application of the modified Byars staged procedure for severe hypospadias repair

Efficacy of deep penile fascia covering plus prepuce graft tube modified urethroplasty versus transverse preputial island flap urethroplasty during proximal hypospadias repair

Safety and Effectiveness of Meatal Mobilization (MEMO) Technique for Glandular, Coronal, and Subcoronal Hypospadias Repair in Children: A 5-Year Single-Center Study with 105 Hypospadias

Can paediatric surgical registrars safely perform supervised hypospadias surgery?

External validation of a low fidelity dry-lab platform to enhance loupes surgical skills techniques for hypospadias repair

Study on the effect of dorsal skin-tightening technique on the correction of mild penile curvature in children with hypospadias

Hypospadias repair: a single centre experience