4.1 Review

Functional, cosmetic and psychosexual results in adult men who underwent hypospadias correction in childhood

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 504-515

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.02.008

Keywords

Hypospadias; Cosmetic; Functional; Psychosexual; Adults; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Long-term results of hypospadias repair are scarce. Previous reviews mostly described mid-term results making extrapolation to long-term results difficult. This systematic review on long-term results in postpubertal men after hypospadias repair in childhood, aims to inform urologists and parents of a newborn boy with hypospadias about future expectations. Methods and materials: The Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases were searched until February 2010. Inclusion criteria stated that patients with hypospadias were operated before the age of 6 years and were older than 14 years at follow up. Results were pooled and analyzed using SPSS 16.0. Data on proximal hypospadias patients and controls are described separately. Results: Twenty eligible studies investigating micturition, cosmesis and psychosexual functioning were found. Hypospadias patients report more urinary symptoms and have a lower Qmax than controls. Patients are less satisfied with penile appearance compared to controls. Objectively assessed cosmetic results are good. Sexually, patients are as active as controls, but are less satisfied. Patients less often have an intimate relationships compared to controls. Conclusion: Study outcomes were heterogeneous due to operation techniques and a lack of validated questionnaires and control groups. Long-term results of hypospadias patients should be measured in a prospective design using validated measurement tools. (C) 2011 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available