Results of tubularized urethral plate urethroplasty in Megameatus Intact Prepuce

Objective: The megameatus variant of anterior hypospadias with an intact complete foreskin occurs in approximately 1%–3% of hypospadias. Hence, the objective of the study was to evaluate the results of tubularized urethral plate urethroplasty (TUPU) in megameatus intact prepuce (MIP). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study (June 1996–June 2015) of MIP from our hypospadias registry was conducted. All patients with megameatus, either with an intact prepuce or with one previously removed, were included in the study. Case sheets of clinical records, investigations, clinical photographs, and videos were reviewed. Patients were classified into, glanular, coronal, subcoronal, and distal penile. TUPU were done. Patients were called for follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and then yearly for the assessment of the cosmetic appearance and fistula, meatal stenosis, or other complications. Results: Of 1026 patients with hypospadias, we identified 13 cases of megameatus variant of hypospadias; three of the 13 had been circumcized previously. Glanular approximation was done for the one patients of the glanular variant, and another had frenuloplasty. These two patients were excluded from the study. Incision in the inner preputial skin was closed in 10 patients to have an intact prepuce. Follow-up period varied from 6 months to 4 years (median follow-up 2½ years). None of the patients developed complications such as fistula, meatal stenosis, and/or wound dehiscence. Conclusions: Surgical correction of MIP in the era of increased cosmetic awareness is justified. Excellent results are obtained with TUPU and along with spongioplasty and frenuloplasty because of availability of wide urethral plate and well-developed spongiosum in these patients. TUPU should be the preferred procedure in cases of MIP.

[1]  S. Bhanot,et al.  Megameatus Intact Prepuce revisited , 2012 .

[2]  S. Shehata,et al.  Megameatus intact prepuce variety of hypospadias: tips for repair using the modified glanular approximation procedure , 2011 .

[3]  W. Snodgrass,et al.  Prior circumcision does not complicate repair of hypospadias with an intact prepuce. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[4]  M. Mullerad,et al.  Megameatus intact prepuce hypospadias variant: application of tubularized incised plate urethroplasty. , 2005, Urology.

[5]  M. Westreich,et al.  Pseudo‐Iatrogenic Hypospadias: The Megameatus Intact‐Prepuce Hypospadias Variant , 2003, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[6]  M. Sanal,et al.  Megameatus and intact prepuce (MIP) associated with meatal web — a case report , 2000, Acta Chirurgica Austriaca.

[7]  A. Lewis,et al.  The modified pyramid hypospadias procedure: repair of megameatus and deep glanular groove variants. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[8]  J. Duckett,et al.  Technical challenge of the megameatus intact prepuce hypospadias variant: the pyramid procedure. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[9]  M. Zaontz The GAP (glans approximation procedure) for glanular/coronal hypospadias. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[10]  J. Duckett MAGPI (meatoplasty and glanuloplasty): a procedure for subcoronal hypospadias. , 1981, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[11]  G. Belloli The cutaneous advancement procedure for megameatus and intact prepuce repair , 2004, Pediatric surgery international (Print).

[12]  H. Kakizaki,et al.  Surgical repair of anterior hypospadias with fish-mouth meatus and intact prepuce based on anatomical characteristics. , 1998, European urology.