Comparing the outcomes of tubularized incised plate urethroplasty and dorsal inlay graft urethroplasty in children with hypospadias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of pediatric urology 2020-04, Vol.16 (2), p.154-161
• Main Authors: Alshafei, Abdulrahman, Cascio, Salvatore, Boland, Fiona, O'Shea, Nicola, Hickey, Anne, Quinn, Feargal
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Children; Dorsal inlay graft; Hypospadias; Tubularized incised plate; Urethroplasty
• ISSN: 1477-5131; 1873-4898
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.01.009

Excellent outcomes have been reported following the widely accepted tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIPU) and its relatively recent modification, the dorsal inlay graft urethroplasty (DIGU). However, there is a lack of consensus on which technique offers more favorable postoperative outcomes. To systematically compare the reported outcomes of the TIPU and DIGU techniques in children undergoing primary hypospadias repair. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. An electronic database search was conducted up to May 2018. Sources included Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as well as trial registries and grey literature sources. Studies were selected if they compared the postoperative complications of TIPU and DIGU in children. Secondary outcomes included standardized cosmetic scores and urinary flow studies. A meta-analysis of reported complications was performed using a random-effects model. Two randomized, two prospective, and two retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. TIPU and DIGU were performed in 350 and 267 patients, respectively. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference regarding postoperative urethrocutaneous fistula, meatal/urethral stenosis, wound dehiscence, or total complications. Subgroup analysis according to hypospadias severity did not alter initial findings. Statistical analysis of secondary outcomes was not feasible due to insufficient data. Most studies were of low methodological quality with a high risk of bias. There is no strong evidence to suggest that either technique offers more favorable outcomes. Until more robust randomized trials exist, decisions regarding the appropriate repair should be based on the surgeon's experience and outcomes.