Skip to main content
Log in

Modified Pediatric Penile Perception Scale to Evaluate Cosmetic Outcome in Children With Hypospadias Repair

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Indian Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the interpretation for cosmesis post-hypospadias repair by child, parents and surgeons using modified Pediatric Penile Perception Scale (PPPS).

Methods

This cross-sectional study involving 50 children (aged 2 to 17 years) with hypospadias was conducted at the pediatric surgery department of our public sector tertiary care hospital. Subjects were assessed 6 months after completion of all stages of hypospadias repair. Cosmetic assessment was done using modified PPPS. We clubbed together the variables ‘meatus’ and ‘glans’ as MG (meatus-glans) complex due to their extreme proximity (embedding), while cosmesis of phallus was considered independently. The modified PPPS scoring parameters included phallus, MG complex, shaft skin, and general appearance. Independent assessment by surgeon, patients and parents was compared, and analyzed using SAS 9.2 statistical software. Cosmetic results of single vs staged repair, and different repair types was compared.

Results

Assessment using modified PPPS showed that MG complex cosmesis and skin scarring were the most heeded parameters by all three categories of observers. PPPS by surgeons remained least affected by phallic cosmesis and that of the patient by the overall phallic appearance. Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIPU) scored better on cosmesis.

Conclusion

Phallic cosmesis should be considered an independent variable for assessing cosmetic outcome of hypospadias, apart from MG cosmesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Ververidis M, Dickson AP, Gough D. An objective assessment of the results of hypospadias surgery. BJU Int. 2005; 96:135–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weber DM, Schönbucher VB, Landolt MA, Gobet R. The pediatric penile perception score: An instrument for patient self-assessment and surgeon evaluation after hypospadias repair. J Urol. 2008;180:1080–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van der Toorn F, de Jong TP, de Gier RP, et al. HOPE (Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation) score: A validation study of an objective scoring system for evaluating cosmetic appearance in hypospadias patients. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9: 1006–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Holland AJ, Smith GH, Ross FI, Cass DT. HOSE: an objective scoring system for evaluating the results of hypospadias surgery. BJU Int. 2001;88:255–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mureau MA, Slijper FM, Slob AK, et al. Satisfaction with penile appearance after hypospadias surgery: The patient and surgeon view. J Urol. 1996;155:703–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jiao C, Wu R, Xu X, Yu Q. Long-term outcome of penile appearance and sexual function after hypospadias repairs: situation and relation. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43:47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vandendriessche S, Baeyens D, Van Hoecke E, Indekeu A, Hoebeke P. Body image and sexuality in adolescents after hypospadias surgery. J Pediatr Urol. 2010;6:54–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schönbucher VB, Weber DM, Landolt MA. Psychosocial adjustment, health-related quality of life, and psychosexual development of boys with hypospadias: a systematic review. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:520–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Castagnetti M, Zhapa E, Rigamonti W. Primary severe hypospadias: comparison of reoperation rates and parental perception of urinary symptoms and cosmetic outcomes among 4 repairs. J Urol. 2013;189:1508–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lam PN, Greenfield SP, Williot P. 2-stage repair in infancy for severe hypospadias with chordee: long-term results after puberty. J Urol. 2005;174:1567–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mureau MA, Slijper FM, Nijman RJ, et al. Psychosexual adjustment of children and adolescents after different types of hypospadias surgery. J Urol. 1995;154: 1902–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moriya K, Kakizaki H, Tanaka H, et al. Long-term cosmetic and sexual outcome of hypospadias surgery: norm related study in adolescence. J Urol. 2006;176:1889–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fievet L, Harper L, Chirpaz E, et al. Penile length is comparable in boys with and without hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol. 2012;8:493–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Teckchandani N, Bajpai M. Penile length in hypospadias. J Progress Pediatr Urol. 2014;17:80–3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding: None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Contributors: SKR, PK, JK, SKA: concepts, design, definition of intellectual content, literature search, clinical studies, data acquisition, data analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, manuscript review; SKR: guarantor of the study. All authors approved the final version of manuscript, and are accountable for all aspects related to the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simmi K. Ratan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics clearance: IEC, Maulana Azad Medical College; dated Nov, 2014. (No number allotted).

Competing interests: None stated.

Additional information

Note: Additional material related to this study is available with the online version at https://www.indianpediatrics.net

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ratan, S.K., Kumar, P., Kishore, J. et al. Modified Pediatric Penile Perception Scale to Evaluate Cosmetic Outcome in Children With Hypospadias Repair. Indian Pediatr 60, 655–658 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-023-2966-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-023-2966-2

Keywords

Navigation