Urethroplasty for failed hypospadias repair: a matched cohort analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the outcome of urethroplasty for failed hypospadias repair and to compare this with a matched cohort of patients treated with urethroplasty for other reasons.


METHODS
Between January 2000 and August 2007, 25 patients with a failed hypospadias repair were treated with urethroplasty (A). This cohort of patients was matched with a cohort of 25 patients who underwent urethroplasty for other reasons (B). The patients were matched for stricture location, stricture length, duration of follow up and type of urethroplasty. The outcomes were analysed and compared. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


RESULTS
There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in stricture location, stricture length, follow up and previous interventions. Patients in cohort A however were significantly younger. The surgical technique used was exactly the same in A and B. Failure was observed in 7 patients (28%) in A compared to 4 patients (16%) in B (P = 0.45).


CONCLUSIONS
Although a higher failure rate was observed after failed hypospadias repair, this is not proof of a worse outcome for urethroplasty after failed hypospadias repair due to the lack of statistical significance.
Lumen
Nicolaas
N
Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. lumennicolaas@hotmail.com
Hoebeke
Piet
P
Deschepper
Ellen
E
Van Laecke
Erik
E
De Caestecker
Karel
K
Oosterlinck
Willem
W
D000328:Adult; D015331:Cohort Studies; D016208:Databases, Factual; D006801:Humans; D007021:Hypospadias / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011379:Prognosis; D012086:Reoperation / Q000379:methods*; D013524:Surgical Flaps; D017211:Treatment Failure; D014521:Urethra / Q000601:surgery*; D013521:Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male