Objective
To compare outcomes of the Mathieu incised-plate (Mathieu-IP) technique vs the standard tubularised incised-plate (TIP) technique for primary management of distal hypospadias.
Patients and methods
Between April 2012 and August 2015, 66 patients (aged 15–60 months) with primary distal hypospadias were randomly allocated to two groups. Group 1 included 34 patients who underwent Mathieu-IP repair and Group 2 included 32 patients managed using the TIP technique for primary management of distal hypospadias. Postoperatively, all patients were examined weekly up to 1 month and then at 3 and 6 months. Perioperative data, complications and outcomes of both procedures were statistically analysed and compared.
Results
There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics between the groups at baseline. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (SD) operative time between Groups 1 and 2, at 95 (7.6) and 91.2 (8.1) min, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the shape of the urine stream at micturition or the neomeatus between the groups postoperatively. The rate of postoperative fistula was significantly higher in Group 2 (TIP) compared to Group 1 (Mathieu-IP), at 18.7% vs 2.9% (P = 0.004). There was no postoperative meatal stenosis in Group 1, which did occur in five patients (15.6%) in Group 2 (P = 0.002).
Conclusion
The Mathieu-IP technique appeared to be better than the standard TIP technique with regard to postoperative fistula formation and meatal stenosis, and with acceptable cosmesis. |
