Secondary hypospadias repair in two stages

IntroductionFollowing failed primary reconstruction, various single-stage reconstructive techniques have been proposed for secondary hypospadias repair. Unfortunately, these frequently fail to achieve a satisfactory cosmetic and functional outcome. We review a single surgeon's experience of two-staged reconstruction in this scenario.Patients and methodsOf 104 patients with hypospadias treated in two stages, between July 1998 and June 2003, 42 were secondary reconstructions. The site of the meatus after initial failed repair was glanular (5), subcoronal (11), distal shaft (12), mid-shaft (6) or peno-scrotal (8). Factors associated with the choice of two-stage reconstruction included moderate/severe chordee (14), excessive scarring (15), shallow/no groove or poor glans (8), and balanitis xerotica obliterans (4). The grafts used were post-auricular skin (PAWG, 29) buccal mucosa (BMG, 6), inner prepuce (IP, 6) and one composite graft. The mean age of our patients was 131 months and the average follow up after the second stage was 26.3 months.ResultsIn 40 of the 42 cases the graft took well. In one patient a PAWG developed keloid scarring which was excised and later successfully replaced with a BMG. In another, severe shrinkage of a BMG led to revision with a PAWG. Following the second stage, complications were experienced in five: the repair broke down in two BMG patients and was successfully reconstructed with a PAWG in both, and three developed fistulae that were repaired (1 PAWG, 1 BMG, 1 IP).ConclusionsThe two-staged reconstruction is a versatile and technically straightforward secondary procedure for this difficult patient cohort. Excellent cosmetic and functional results can be achieved with only a small risk of a revision operation. Four of our six BMG patients experienced problems and PAWG appears more satisfactory with superior results.