A comparative study between Snodgrass and urethral advancement methods in the repair of distal penile Hypospadias

Abstract

Abstract Background: Numerous original methods have been introduced to repair hypospadias with variable results. Objective: The aim of this work is to evaluate the two techniques, Snodgrass and anterior urethral advancement for the repair of distal hypospadias. Materials and Methods: A total of, 16 patients with distal hypospadias underwent primary repair in a prospective controlled randomized trial. Eight patients were allocated for a Snodgrass procedure and another 8 patients were allocated for a urethral advancement procedure. A comparative study was conducted, and the outcome was evaluated in terms of satisfactory functional and cosmetic outcomes. Results: The mean duration of surgery was significantly shorter for the Urethral advancement than for the Snodgrass procedure 56 minutes versus 76 minutes respectively. The cosmetic and functional results were better in the urethral advancement than Snodgrass. All patients healed uneventfully but one of the patients who underwent urethral advancement repair had chordee. One patient had a urethrocutaneous fistula and two patients had a failure of repair that occurred in the Snodgrass group. Conclusion: Urethral advancement is a safer and more reliable modality for the primary repair of distal penile hypospadias. It has many advantages, shorter operative time and better functional and cosmetic results