Glans size is an independent risk factor for urethroplasty complications after hypospadias repair

• Published in: Journal of pediatric urology Vol. 11; no. 6; pp. 355.e1 - 355.e5
• Main Authors: Bush, Nicol C, Villanueva, Carlos, Snodgrass, Warren
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2015
• Subjects: Glans size; Glans width; Humans; Hypospadias; Hypospadias - surgery; Infant; Male; Organ Size; Pediatrics; Penis - anatomy & histology; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; TIP repair; Urethra - surgery; Urethroplasty complications; Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods; Urology; Glans size; Hypospadias; Urethroplasty complications; 95% confidence interval; tubularized incised plate; Glans width; TIP; area under the curve; TIP repair; 95% CI; UC; AUC
• ISSN: 1477-5131; 1873-4898
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.05.029

Summary Introduction We hypothesized small glans size could increase urethroplasty complications (UC) following hypospadias repair. To test this, we measured glans width at its widest point in consecutive patients with hypospadias, and following a protocol for surgical decision-making, we then assessed post-operative UC using pre-determined definitions. We now report analysis of glans size as a potential additional independent risk factor for UC after hypospadias repair. Methods Consecutive prepubertal patients undergoing hypospadias repair (2009–2013) had maximum glans width measured using calipers (Fig. 1). There were no differences in surgical technique for urethroplasty or glansplasty in this series based on the measured size of the glans. Multivariate logistic regression analyzed UC (fistula, glans dehiscence, diverticulum, stricture and/or meatal stenosis) based on glans size while adjusting for patient age, meatus (distal or midshaft/proximal), type of repair (TIP, inlay, 2-stage), surgeon, and primary or reoperative repair. Glans size was analyzed as both a continuous and dichotomous variable, with small glans defined as <14 mm. Results Mean glans size was 15 mm (10–27 mm) in 490 boys (mean 1.5 years) undergoing 432 primary repairs (380d/19mid/33prox), and 58 reoperations (28d/7mid/23prox). Increasing age between 3 months and 10 years did not correlate with increasing glans size (R = 0.01, p = 0.18). 17% had small glans <14 mm. UC occurred in 61 (13%) primary TIP, 2-stage, and reoperative repairs, including 20/81 (25%) patients with small glans <14 mm, versus 41/409 (10%) in patients with glans width ≥14 mm (p = 0.0003). On multivariate analysis, small glans size (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.8–6.8), reoperations (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4–6.5) and mid/proximal meatus (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.6–6.2) were independent risk factors for UC. Surgeon, repair type, and patient age did not impact risk for UC. Analysis with glans size as a continuous variable demonstrated each 1 mm increase in size decreased odds of UC (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9). Conclusions Our analysis of prospectively-collected data from a standardized management protocol in 490 consecutive boys undergoing hypospadias repair adds small glans size, defined as width <14 mm, to proximal meatal location and reoperation as an independent risk factor for UC. Best means to modify this factor remain to be determined. Our data suggest that others analyzing potential risks for hypospadias UC should similarly measure and report glans width.