Grade of hypospadias is the only factor predicting for re-intervention after primary hypospadias repair: a multivariate analysis from a cohort of 474 patients.
BACKGROUND
There is an ongoing quest on how to minimize complications in hypospadias surgery. There is however a lack of high-quality data on the following parameters that might influence the outcome of primary hypospadias repair: age at initial surgery, the type of suture material, the initial technique, and the type of hypospadias.


OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to identify independent predictors for re-intervention in primary hypospadias repair.


STUDY DESIGN
We retrospectively analyzed our database of 474 children undergoing primary hypospadias surgery. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with re-intervention. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant and therefore considered as a prognostic factor for re-intervention.


RESULTS
Distal penile hypospadias was reported in 77.2% (n = 366), midpenile in 11.4% (n = 54) and proximal in 11.4% (n = 54) of children. Initial repair was based on an incised plate technique in 39.9% (n = 189), meatal advancement in 36.0% (n = 171), an onlay flap in 17.3% (n = 82) and other or combined techniques in 5.3% (n = 25). In 114 patients (24.1%) re-intervention was required (n = 114) of which 54 re-interventions (47.4%) were performed within the first year post-surgery, 17 (14.9%) in the second year and 43 (37.7%) later than 2 years after initial surgery. The reason for the first re-intervention was fistula in 52 patients (46.4%), meatal stenosis in 32 (28.6%), cosmesis in 35 (31.3%) and other in 14 (12.5%). The median time for re-intervention was 14 months after surgery [range 0-114]. Significant predictors for re-intervention on univariate logistic regression (polyglactin suture material versus poliglecaprone, proximal hypospadias, lower age at operation and other than meatal advancement repair) were put in a multivariate logistic regression model. Of all significant variables, only proximal hypospadias remained an independent predictor for re-intervention (OR 3.27; p = 0.012).


DISCUSSION
The grade of hypospadias remains according to our retrospective analysis the only objective independent predicting factor for re-intervention in hypospadias surgery. This finding is rather obvious for everyone operating hypospadias. Curiously midpenile hypospadias cases were doing slightly better than distal hypospadias in terms of re-intervention rates. Our study however has also some shortcomings. First of all, data was gathered retrospectively and follow-up time was ill-balanced for several variables. We tried to correct this by applying sensitivity analysis, but possible associations between some variables and re-intervention might still be obscured by this. Standard questionnaires to analyze surgical outcome were not available. Therefore, we focused our analysis on re-intervention rate as this is a hard and clinically relevant end point.


CONCLUSIONS
This retrospective analysis of a large hypospadias database with long-term follow-up indicates that the long-lasting debate about factors influencing the reoperation rate in hypospadias surgery might be futile: in experienced hands, the only variable that independently predicts for re-intervention is the severity of hypospadias, the only factor we cannot modify. This retrospective multivariate analysis of a large hypospadias database with long-term follow-up suggests that the only significant independent predictive factor for re-intervention is proximal hypospadias. In our series, technique did not influence the re-intervention rate.