Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 429–433 | Cite as

Outcome of hypospadias repair in toilet-trained children and adolescents

  • Stanislav Kocherov
  • Dan Prat
  • Dmitry Koulikov
  • Alexander Ioscovich
  • Ofer Z. Shenfeld
  • Amicur Farkas
  • Boris Chertin
Original Article



To review a leading causes and surgical outcome of hypospadias repair in toilet-trained children and adolescents in our department.

Materials and methods

Over the period from 1987 to 2010, 84 toilet-trained children and adolescents with a median age of 13 years (range 4–18) underwent hypospadias repair. Voiding symptoms were a cause for referral in 31(36%) patients, difficulties in self-appraisal or patient desire in 49(55.7%) and 4(4.8%) patients with DSD underwent male genitoplasty as a part of sex reassignment. Of those 43(51.2%) had glanular hypospadias, 36(42.9%) distal and 5(5.9%) had proximal type of hypospadias. Meatoplasty was performed in 18(21.4%) patients, MAGPI in 24(28.6%), Mathieu flip-flap in 20(23.8%), preputial pedicled flap as onlay in 2(2.4%) and as tubularized in 2(2.4%) patients, and TIP procedure was done in 16(19%). Two (2.4%) patients required two stage repair.


Twenty-three (27.4%) developed surgery-related complications such as meatal stenosis in 3(15.5%), breakdown of primary repair in 7(8.3%), and urethral fistula in 13(15.5%) patients, respectively.


There are clear differences in terms of complications rate and overall success compared with the repair in the earlier ages.


Hypospadias Toilet-trained children Surgical outcome 



Meatal advancement glanuloplasty


Tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair


Disorders of sex development


  1. 1.
    Mouriquand P, Mure PY (2001) Hypospadias. In: Gearhart J, Rink R, Mouriquand P (eds) Pediatric urology. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 278–713Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chertin B, Koulikov D, Hadas-Halpern I et al (2004) Masculanized genitoplasty in male pseudohermaphroditism. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev 2(1):15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dodson JL, Baird AD, Baker LA et al (2007) Outcomes of delayed hypospadias repair: implications for decision making. J Urol 178:278–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grobbelaar AO, Laing JH, Harrison DH et al (1996) Hypospadias repair: the influence of postoperative care and a patient factor on surgical morbidity. Ann Plast Surg 37:612–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bermudez DM, Canning DA, Liechty KW (2011) Age and pro-inflammatory cytokine production: wound-healing implications for scar-formation and the timing of genital surgery in boys. J Pediatr Urol 7:324–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Senkul T, Karademir K, Iseri C et al (2002) Hypospadias in adults. Urology 60:1059–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sharma G (2005) Tubularized-incised plate urethroplasty in adults. BJU Int 95:374–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ching CB, Wood HM, Ross JH et al (2011) The Cleveland clinic experience with adult hypospadias patients undergoing repair: their presentation and a new classification system. BJU Int 107(7):1142–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hensle TW, Tennenbaum SY, Reiley EA et al (2001) Hypospadias repair in adults: adventures and misadventures. J Urol 165:77–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chertin B, Koulikov D, Fridmans A et al (2004) Dorsal tunica albuginea plication to correct congenital and acquired penile curvature: a long-term follow-up. BJU Int 93:379–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Werff JF, Boeve E, Brussé CA et al (1997) Urodynamic evaluation of hypospadias repair. J Urol 157(4):1344–1346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uygur MC, Unal D, Tan MO et al (2002) Factors affecting outcome of one-stage anterior hypospadias repair: analysis of 422 cases. Pediatr Surg Int 18:142–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bracka A (1995) Hypospadias repair: the two-stage alternative. Br J Urol 76:31–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Braga LH, Pippi Salle JL, Lorenzo AJ et al (2007) Comparative analysis of tubularized incised plate versus onlay island flap urethroplasty for penoscrotal hypospadias. J Urol 178(4 Pt 1):1451–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Snodgrass W, Bush N (2011) Tubularized incised plate proximal hypospadias repair: continued evolution and extended applications. J Pediatr Urol 7(1):2–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    El-Sherbiny MT (2003) Tubularized incised plate repair of distal hypospadias in toilet-trained children: should a stent be left? BJU Int 92(9):1003–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scarpa MG, Castagnetti M, Berrettini A et al (2010) Urinary function after Snodgrass repair of distal hypospadias: comparison with the Mathieu repair. Pediatr Surg Int 26(5):519–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanislav Kocherov
    • 1
  • Dan Prat
    • 1
  • Dmitry Koulikov
    • 1
  • Alexander Ioscovich
    • 2
  • Ofer Z. Shenfeld
    • 1
  • Amicur Farkas
    • 1
  • Boris Chertin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Urology, Faculty of Medical Science, Shaare Zedek Medical CenterHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medical Science, Shaare Zedek Medical CenterHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations