CYSTOSTOMY DIVERSION REDUCED COMPLICATIONS FOLLOWING HYPOSPADIAS REPAIR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to investigate the associations between the use of cystostomy diversion and the incidence of complications following hypospadias repair. Material & Methods: An extensive search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, was performed to identify studies that assessed the impact of cystostomy diversion on complication rates after hypospadias repair. To evaluate potential biases, the RoB 2 tool was applied for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the ROBINS-I tool was used for observational studies. Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Results: This review included ten studies involving 1.120 patients who underwent hypospadias repair. The overall complication was 16.9%. The meta-analysis revealed that opting against cystostomy diversion after hypospadias repair led to a notably increased risk of complications, as evidenced by a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–2.03). The significant negative effect of not performing cystostomy on the risk of complications was consistent in sub-analysis of distal hypospadias (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.11–3.51) and primary hypospadias repair (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.19–2.73). In the funnel plot, there was no significant publication bias identified. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that cystostomy diversion reduces the incidence of complications following hypospadias repair. The positive effects were consistent in both distal hypospadias and primary hypospadias repair. Keywords: Complications, cystostomy, hypospadias.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Complications, cystostomy, hypospadias
Halaseh SA, Halaseh S, Ashour M. Hypospadias: A Comprehensive Review Including Its Embryology, Etiology and Surgical Techniques. Cureus. 2022; 14(7): e27544.
van der Horst HJR, de Wall LL. Hypospadias, all there is to know. Eur J Pediatr. 2017; 176(4): 435-441.
Elliott CS, Halpern MS, Paik J, Maldonado Y, Shortliffe LD. Epidemiologic trends in penile anomalies and hypospadias in the state of California, 1985-2006. J Pediatr Urol. 2011; 7(3): 294-298.
Springer A, van den Heijkant M, Baumann S. Worldwide prevalence of hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol. 2016; 12(3): 152.e1-7.
Duckett JW. Hypospadias. Pediatr Rev. 1989; 11(2): 37-42.
Baskin LS, Ebbers MB. Hypospadias: anatomy, etiology, and technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2006; 41(3): 463-472.
Bhat A. General considerations in hypospadias surgery. Indian J Urol. 2008; 24(2): 188-194.
Oesterling JE, Gearhart JP, Jeffs RD. Urinary diversion in hypospadias surgery. Urology. 1987; 29(5): 513-516.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898.
Mitchell ME, Kulb TB. Hypospadias repair without a bladder drainage catheter. J Urol. 1986; 135(2): 321-323.
Chuang JH, Shieh CS. Two-layer versus one-layer closure in transverse island flap repair of posterior hypospadias. J Pediatr Surg. 1995; 30(5): 739-742.
Demirbilek S, Atayurt HF. Repair With Stent or Suprapubic Diversion: Which is Better? J Pediatr Surg. 1997; 32(12): 1711-1712.
Ozturk H, Onen A, Otçu S, Kaya M, Ozturk H. The outcome of one-stage hypospadias repairs. J Pediatr Urol. 2005; 1(4): 261-266.
Germiyanoǧlu C, Nuhoǧlu B, Ayyildiz A, Akgül KT. Investigation of factors affecting result of distal hypospadias repair: Comparison of two techniques. Urology. 2006; 68(1): 182-185.
Karabulut A, Sunay M, Erdem K, Emir L, Erol D. Retrospective analysis of the results obtained by using Mathieu and TIP urethroplasty techniques in recurrent hypospadias repairs. J Pediatr Urol. 2008; 4(5): 359-363.
Radwan M, Soliman MG, Tawfik A, Abo-Elenen M, el-Benday M. Does the type of urinary diversion affect the result of distal hypospadias repair? A prospective randomized trial. Ther Adv Urol. 2012; 4(4): 161-165.
Qamar SA, Pansota MS, Rasool M, Tabassum SA, Saleem MS. Urinary diversion in hypospadias repair: suprapubic cystostomy versus transurethral catheterization. Pak Armed Forces Med. 2013; 63(1): 75-79.
Laura SF, Duarsa GWK, Mahadewa ATG. Correlation of Cystostomy To Low Urethrocutaneous Fistula Incident in Hypospadia Surgery. Bali Med J. 2014; 3(3): 125.
Duarsa GWK, Tirtayasa PMW, Daryanto B, et al. Risk factors for urethrocutaneous fistula following hypospadias repair surgery in Indonesia. J Pediatr Urol. 2020; 16(3): 317.e1-317.e6.
Nazarko L. Bladder pain from indwelling urinary catheterization: case study. Br J Nurs. 2007; 16(9): 511-512.
Ahluwalia RS, Johal N, Kouriefs C, Kooiman G, Montgomery BSI, Plail RO. The surgical risk of suprapubic catheter insertion and long-term sequelae. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006; 88(2): 210-213.
Aslan AR, Yücebaş E, Tekin A, Sengör F, Kogan BA. Short-term catheterization after TIP repair in distal hypospadias: who are the best candidates? Pediatr Surg Int. 2007; 23(3): 265-269.