Grade of hypospadias is the only factor predicting for re-intervention after primary hypospadias repair: a multivariate analysis from a cohort of 474 patients

Background: There is an ongoing quest on how to minimize complications in hypospadias surgery. There is however a lack of high-quality data on the following parameters that might influence the outcome of primary hypospadias repair: age at initial surgery, the type of suture material, the initial technique, and the type of hypospadias.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify independent predictors for re-intervention in primary hypospadias repair.

Study design: We retrospectively analyzed our database of 474 children undergoing primary hypospadias surgery. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with re-intervention. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant and therefore considered as a prognostic factor for re-intervention.

Results: Distal penile hypospadias was reported in 77.2% (n = 366), midpenile in 11.4% (n = 54) and proximal in 11.4% (n = 54) of children. Initial repair was based on an incised plate technique in 39.9% (n = 189), meatal advancement in 36.0% (n = 171), an onlay flap in 17.3% (n = 82) and other or combined techniques in 5.3% (n = 25). In 114 patients (24.1%) re-intervention was required (n = 114) of which 54 re-interventions (47.4%) were performed within the first year post-surgery, 17 (14.9%) in the second year and 43 (37.7%) later than 2 years after initial surgery. The reason for the first re-intervention was fistula in 52 patients (46.4%), meatal stenosis in 32 (28.6%), cosmesis in 35 (31.3%) and other in 14 (12.5%). The median time for re-intervention was 14 months after surgery [range 0-114]. Significant predictors for re-intervention on univariate logistic regression (polyglactin suture material versus poliglecaprone, proximal hypospadias, lower age at operation and other than meatal advancement repair) were put in a multivariate logistic regression model. Of all significant variables, only proximal hypospadias remained an independent predictor for re-intervention (OR 3.27; p = 0.012).

Discussion: The grade of hypospadias remains according to our retrospective analysis the only objective independent predicting factor for re-intervention in hypospadias surgery. This finding is rather obvious for everyone operating hypospadias. Curiously midpenile hypospadias cases were doing slightly better than distal hypospadias in terms of re-intervention rates. Our study however has also some shortcomings. First of all, data was gathered retrospectively and follow-up time was ill-balanced for several variables. We tried to correct this by applying sensitivity analysis, but possible associations between some variables and re-intervention might still be obscured by this. Standard questionnaires to analyze surgical outcome were not available. Therefore, we focused our analysis on re-intervention rate as this is a hard and clinically relevant end point.

Conclusions: This retrospective analysis of a large hypospadias database with long-term follow-up indicates that the long-lasting debate about factors influencing the reoperation rate in hypospadias surgery might be futile: in experienced hands, the only variable that independently predicts for re-intervention is the severity of hypospadias, the only factor we cannot modify. This retrospective multivariate analysis of a large hypospadias database with long-term follow-up suggests that the only significant independent predictive factor for re-intervention is proximal hypospadias. In our series, technique did not influence the re-intervention rate.