Comparative Study Between Meatal Advancement and Glanuloplasty Incorporated Repair and Glandular Urethral Disassembly for Distal Hypospadias | ||||
| Al-Azhar International Medical Journal | ||||
| Volume 2024, Issue 1, January 2024 | ||||
| DOI: 10.58675/2682-339X.2303 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Ahmed Elsayed Hamed Abuhassan; Soliman Mohammed soliman; Mabrouk Moawad Akl | ||||
| Department of Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Medicine for Boys, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: These days, a variety of surgical techniques are used to treat hypospadias. The major goal is to attain optimal function with the urethral meatus at the glans' tip, acceptable cosmoses, and the absence of any related chordae. Aim and objectives: This study's objective was to make comparisons between the outcomes of Meatal Advancement and Glanuloplasty Incorporated (MAGPI) repair and Glandular Urethral Disassembly (GUD) repair in the management of glanular, coronal, and subcoronal hypospadias. Patients and Methods: This prospective clinical trial included 30 patients with distal hypospadias submitted for surgical repair at Al-Azhar University Hospital in Cairo, Egypt, during the period between 2022-2023. Patients were split into two groups: Group 1: 15 patients who were repaired by the MAGPI technique. Group 2:15 patients who were repaired by the GUD technique. Results: The operative time was slightly lower in group 1 (MAGPI) than in group 2 (GUD) (P value = 0.12). There is no substantial variation between the two techniques regarding the postoperative healing duration, hospital stay, or postoperative complications, including pain, bleeding, hematoma, infection, meatal stricture, fistula, and glans dehiscence. The cosmoses were significantly better and more satisfying to the parents in group 2 (GUD) than group 1 (MAGPI). Conclusion: Glandular Urethral Disassembly (GUD) is better than Meatal Advancement and Glanuloplasty Incorporated (MAGPI) regarding the cosmetic result, while MAGPI is more favorable than GUD in terms of shorter operative time, and there is no substantial variation between the two techniques regarding the overall complications. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 12 |
||||
