4.1 Article

Voiding patterns of adult patients who underwent hypospadias repair in childhood

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.08.020

关键词

Hypospadias repair; Voiding pattern; Long-term follow-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective This study aimed at evaluating the voiding patterns of adult patients who underwent hypospadias repair in childhood. Method Following IRB approval 103 (22.7%) of 449 adult patients who underwent hypospadias repair between 1978 and 1993 responded to the following questionnaires: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Short Form 12 questionnaire (SF- 12). Uro-flowmetry (UF) was performed for all patients. The patients were divided into three groups according to the primary meatus localization. Group I had 63 patients (61.5%) treated for glanular hypospadias, group II had 19 patients (18.4%) treated for distal hypospadias, and group III comprised the remaining 21 patients (20.4%) treated for proximal hypospadias. Results The mean +/- SD I- PSS score for all patients who responded to the questionnaire was 2.3 +/- 2.4, and UF was 21.1 +/- 4.3 mL/ s. The patients from groups I and III had fewer urinary symptoms compared with those of the group II: 1.3 +/- 1.5, 5.5 +/- 2.4, and 1.6 +/- 1.4, respectively (p < 0.0001). With regards to UF, the patients from the groups I and III did better compared with those from the group II: 22.1 +/- 4.1 mL/ s, 18.91 4.2 mL/ s, and 20.11 +/- 3.42 mL/ s, respectively (p=Z0.021)(Figure). The UF was better in patients with normal vs. abnormal IPSS(p=Z0.0064). The physical component summary was 49.8 +/- 10.3, 51.1 +/- 3.6, and 46.4 +/- 0.3 in groups I, II, and III, respectively. The mental summary component was 42.64 +/- 4.1, 42.2 +/- 2.4, and 39.89 +/- 2.9 in groups I, II, and III, respectively. Conclusions Most of the adult patients who underwent hypospadias repair in childhood had normal or mild voiding disturbance, with no effects on their physical or mental status. [GRAPHICS]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据