Defining the Indications of PATIO Technique for Urethrocutaneous Fistula Repair

Prativa Choudhury; Shivani Phugat; Vishesh Jain; Devendra Kumar Yadav; Anjan Kumar Dhua; Vivek Verma; Ajay Verma; Sachit Anand; Sanchita Singh; Prabudh Goel

doi:10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_25_23

Defining the Indications of PATIO Technique for Urethrocutaneous Fistula Repair

J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2023 Sep-Oct;28(5):375-386. doi: 10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_25_23. Epub 2023 Sep 5.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Paediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
² Department of Biostatistics, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India.
³ Department of Health Research, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the advancements in technique and technology, urethrocutaneous fistula (UCF) formation continues to be the most common complication after hypospadias repair.

Objective: The objective of the current synthesis is to define the indications of PATIO technique for UCF repair.

Materials and methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were interrogated for studies presenting primary data upon UCF repair by the PATIO technique. Data analysis was performed on MedCalc and R software.

Results: Eighteen studies were identified relevant to the current context: inversion of UCF tract has been described in 13 and ligation in 5. There were 2 duplications (abstract and manuscript). The overall success for PATIO is 88.2% (314/356). The success rate was variable between classic PATIO (inversion at 87.2%), ligation-inversion at 86.9%, and ligation alone at 88.9%. The success rate was not improvised upon by supplementing inversion of UCF tract with ligation (p = 0.957) or addition of a waterproofing layer (p = 0.622). PATIO has been used for single or multiple UCFs post hypospadias repair, genital piercing, and genitoplasty in cis- or transgender population for UCF up to 5 mm in size. The success rates were best for UCF <2 mm and worst for those approaching 5 mm. The results were, however, unaffected by the location of UCF along the penile shaft. Besides, the use of urethral catheter is optional and may be eliminated with shorter hospitalization.

Conclusions: PATIO repair may be considered for repair of UCFs (a) with diverse etiologies, (b) located anywhere along the penile shaft included coronal UCF, (c) preferably <4 mm in size, (d) single or multiple in number; multiple PATIOs may be done in the same setting, (e) in patients unwilling for prolonged hospitalization, (f) in patients unwilling for a urethral catheter, and (g) in hypospadias cripples wherein mobilization of distant tissues such as tunica vaginalis flap or a buccal mucosal graft may be required for supplementing the UCF repair.

Keywords: Inversion of urethrocutaneous fistula; PATIO repair; ligation of urethrocutaneous fistula; ligation-inversion of urethrocutaneous fistula; urethrocutaneous fistula; waterproofing layer.