Efficacy comparison between Mathieu combined urethral plate incision and onlay island flap urethroplasty for distal hypospadias in patients with urethral plate stenosis.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Zhang T;Zhang T; Zhu AB; Zhu AB; Mao CK; Mao CK; Cao YS; Cao YS
  • Source:
    Asian journal of andrology [Asian J Androl] 2024 Jul 01; Vol. 26 (4), pp. 433-438. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 18.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Comparative Study
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Shanghai Materia Medica Country of Publication: China NLM ID: 100942132 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1745-7262 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1008682X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Asian J Androl Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: Shanghai : Shanghai Materia Medica
      Original Publication: Beijing : Science Press,
    • Subject Terms:
      Hypospadias*/surgery ; Hypospadias*/complications ; Surgical Flaps* ; Urethra*/surgery ; Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male*/methods ; Urethral Stricture*/surgery; Humans ; Male ; Retrospective Studies ; Child, Preschool ; Treatment Outcome ; Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods ; Infant ; Child ; Operative Time
    • Abstract:
      The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of Mathieu combined urethral plate incision (Mathieu-IP) versus onlay island flap urethroplasty in patients with distal hypospadias complicated by urethral stenosis. The clinical data of 70 patients with distal hypospadias complicated by urethral plate stenosis treated in the Department of Urology, Anhui Provincial Children's Hospital (Hefei, China), from May 2019 to May 2022, were retrospectively analyzed. Thirty-eight patients underwent Mathieu-IP (Mathieu-IP group) and 32 underwent onlay island flap urethroplasty (Onlay group). Follow-ups at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively assessed operative time, complications, urethral meatus morphology, and family satisfaction. The Mathieu-IP group had significantly shorter operative time (mean ± standard deviation [s.d.]: 81.58 ± 5.18 min) versus the Onlay group (mean ± s.d.: 110.75 ± 6.05 min; P < 0.05). Surgical success rates were 78.9% (Mathieu-IP group) and 75.0% (Onlay group), with no significant difference ( P > 0.05). Complications were comparable between the groups. The Mathieu-IP group resulted in a vertical slit-shaped urethral meatus in 89.5% versus 13.8% in the Onlay group ( P < 0.05). Family satisfaction with general penile appearance and skin shape showed no significant differences, but the Mathieu-IP group had higher satisfaction with meatal position ( P < 0.05). Mathieu-IP offers simplicity, safety, and shorter operative time compared to Onlay. Both the techniques effectively treat urethral plate stenosis in distal hypospadias, with reduced postoperative complications compared to tubularized incised plate urethroplasty. Mathieu-IP results in a vertical slit-shaped urethral meatus which enhances urinary stream, indicating its potential for broader adoption.
      (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: ©The Author(s)(2024).)
    • References:
      J Urol. 2009 Aug;182(2):682-5; discussion 685-6. (PMID: 19539316)
      Eur Urol. 2006 Jul;50(1):53-7. (PMID: 16707207)
      J Pediatr Urol. 2012 Jun;8(3):307-12. (PMID: 21159560)
      Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2003 Dec;13(6):383-5. (PMID: 14743325)
      World J Urol. 2023 Dec;41(12):3643-3650. (PMID: 37947847)
      Asian J Urol. 2017 Apr;4(2):96-101. (PMID: 29264212)
      J Urol. 2012 Dec;188(6):2362-6. (PMID: 23088968)
      World J Urol. 2016 Jul;34(7):1019-24. (PMID: 26394625)
      J Pediatr Surg. 2011 Dec;46(12):2370-2. (PMID: 22152884)
      Asian J Androl. 2023 Mar 14;:. (PMID: 36930542)
      J Pediatr Urol. 2010 Feb;6(1):37-9. (PMID: 20022563)
      J Pediatr Surg. 2000 Mar;35(3):494-6. (PMID: 10726695)
      J Pediatr Urol. 2021 Jun;17(3):316-325. (PMID: 33846072)
      Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018 Feb;34(2):120-121. (PMID: 29413228)
      Urol Int. 2019;102(3):336-340. (PMID: 30731455)
      Arab J Urol. 2017 May 19;15(3):242-247. (PMID: 29071159)
      Asian J Androl. 2022 May-Jun;24(3):311-316. (PMID: 34677148)
      J Pediatr Urol. 2022 Oct;18(5):610.e1-610.e6. (PMID: 36195537)
      BJU Int. 2000 Apr;85(6):725-7. (PMID: 10759674)
      BMC Urol. 2022 Aug 25;22(1):131. (PMID: 36008856)
      Urol Ann. 2023 Jul-Sep;15(3):271-277. (PMID: 37664098)
      BJU Int. 2002 Feb;89(3):291-4. (PMID: 11856113)
      J Urol. 2000 Aug;164(2):489-91. (PMID: 10893631)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20240618 Date Completed: 20240701 Latest Revision: 20240728
    • Publication Date:
      20250114
    • Accession Number:
      PMC11280211
    • Accession Number:
      10.4103/aja202441
    • Accession Number:
      38887020