Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2022-02-22
Abstract Views: 286
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 504
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v150i2.717
Issue
Vol. 150 No. 2 (2022)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Tuân, V. H., Hoa, N. V., & Thành, Đỗ T. (2022). Application of the hypospadias objective scoring evaluation (HOSE) and the pediatric penile perception score (PPPS) to evaluate of the results of proximal hypospadias repair with koyanagi technique. Journal of Medical Research, 150(2), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v150i2.717

Application of the hypospadias objective scoring evaluation (HOSE) and the pediatric penile perception score (PPPS) to evaluate of the results of proximal hypospadias repair with koyanagi technique

Vu Hong Tuan, Nguyen Viet Hoa, Do Truong Thanh

Main Article Content

Abstract

Postoperative evaluation of hypospadias repair is usually based on the outcome of success or failure. We aimed to present outcomes of proximal hypospadias surgery with Koyanagi technique between January 2019 and December 2020 and the use of the Hypospadias Objective Scoring Evaluation – HOSE and the Pediatric Penile Perception Score - PPPS to increase the reliability of research results. HOSE was completed by a separate physician and PPPS questionnaire was completed by parents. This was a cross-sectional descriptive prospectively study, follow-up at 6 months after surgery. A total of 75 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 3.59 ± 2.41 years old, the age group under 5 is 86.7%. Classification of hypospadias: peno-scrotal 41.3%, scrotal 41.3%, perineal 17.4%. Evaluation of the surgeon at 6 months after surgery: success 81.3%, failure 18.7%. The mean HOSE score was found to be 14.47 ± 1.35, the minimum is 11 and maximum 16 points. HOSE score classification: good group (score 14 and above) 76%, average group (score 11 to 13) 24%, no patient was in the poor group (score below 11). The mean PPPS score was found to be 12.28 ± 2.56 the minimum 4 and maximum 16 points. Penile axis after surgery was rated as above the satisfaction score. The indexes of penis length, urethral opening, glans shape, penis skin, and general appearance of the penis all reached satisfaction. The HOSE and the PPPS offered a detailed, quantitative and objective postoperative evaluation of hypospadias thereby provide a satisfactory corrective plan for the failure cases.

Article Details

Keywords

Hypospadias, treatment outcome, the Hypospadias Objective Scoring Evaluation (HOSE), the Pediatric Penile Perception Score (PPPS)

References

1. Baskin LS, Ebbers MB. Hypospadias: Anatomy, Etiology, and Technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2006; 41(3): 463-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.11.059.
2. Trần Ngọc Bích. Chỉ Định và Kỹ Thuật Mổ Lỗ Đái Lệch Thấp Bằng Phẫu Thuật Hai Thì (Kinh Nghiệm ở 42 Bệnh Nhân). Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam. 2013; 403 (số đặc biệt): 487-492.
3. Bhat A, Mandal AK. Acute Postoperative Complications of Hypospadias Repair. Indian J Urol. 2008; 24(2): 241-248. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.40622.
4. Koyanagi T, Matsuno T, Nonomura K, Sakakibara N. Complete Repair of Severe Penoscrotal Hypospadias in 1 Stage: Experience with Urethral Mobilization, Wing Flap-Flipping Urethroplasty and “Glanulomeatoplasty.” J Urol. 1983; 130 (6): 1150-1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)51732-2.
5. Holland AJ, Smith GH, Ross FI. Cass, D. T. HOSE: An Objective Scoring System for Evaluating the Results of Hypospadias Surgery. BJU Int. 2001, 88(3): 255-258. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02280.x.
6. Weber DM, Schönbucher VB, Landolt MA. Gobet, R. The Pediatric Penile Perception Score: An Instrument for Patient Self-Assessment and Surgeon Evaluation after Hypospadias Repair. J Urol. 2008; 180(3): 1080-1084; discussion 1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.060.
7. Nguyễn Mai Hương, T. T. T. Đánh Giá Chất Lượng Cuộc Sống và Tâm Lý Giới Tính Của Trẻ Em 12 - 18 Tuổi Sau Phẫu Thuật Dị Tật Lỗ Tiểu Lệch Thấp. Tạp chí nghiên cứu Y học. 2014; 88 (3): 151–157.
8. Barbagli G, Perovic S, Djinovic R, Sansalone S, Lazzeri M. Retrospective Descriptive Analysis of 1,176 Patients with Failed Hypospadias Repair. J Urol. 2010; 183(1): 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.153.
9. Pierre D.E. Mouriquand, et al. Chapter 41: Hypospadias. In Pediatric urology (2sd edition) 2010; Elservier, 2010; 526–543.
10. Huang LQ, Ge Z, Tian J, Ma G, Lu RG, Deng YJ, Wang LX, Chen CJ, Zhu HB, Zhu XJ, Guo YF. Retrospective Analysis of Individual Risk Factors for Urethrocutaneous Fistula after Onlay Hypospadias Repair in Pediatric Patients. Ital J Pediatr. 2015; 41, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-015-0140-8.
11. Öztorun C, Tiryaki H. Comparision of Uroflow Parameters before and after Hypospadias Surgery. Annals of Pediatric Surgery. 2018; 14: 27-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.XPS.0000516077.70198.54.
12. Vũ Hồng Tuân, N. V. H., Đỗ Trường Thành. Đánh Giá Kết Quả Phẫu Thuật 1 Thì Lỗ Tiểu Lệch Thấp Thể Sau Bằng Kỹ Thuật Koyanagi Cải Tiến. Tạp chí nghiên cứu Y học. 2020; 132 (8): 21-29.
13. Phạm Ngọc Thạch. Kết Quả Điều Trị Lỗ Tiểu Lệch Thấp Thể Giữa và Thể Sau Theo 4 Phương Pháp Khác Nhau. Tạp chí y học thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. 2015; 19 - phụ bản số 5: 144-149.
14. Hussei NS, Samat SBA, Abdullah M.AK, Gohar MN. Cosmetic and Functional Outcomes of Two-Stage Hypospadias Repair: An Objective Scoring Evaluation and Uroflowmetry. Turk J Urol. 2013; 39 (2): 90-95. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.015.
15. Gupta V, Yadav SK, Alanzi T, Amer I, Salah M, Ahmed M. Grafted Tubularised Incised-Plate Urethroplasty: An Objective Assessment of Outcome with Lessons Learnt from Surgical Experience with 263 Cases. Arab J Urol .2016; 14 (4): 299-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2016.09.002.
16. Thiry S, Saussez T, Dormeus S, Tombal B, Wese FX, Feyaerts, A. Long-Term Functional, Cosmetic and Sexual Outcomes of Hypospadias Correction Performed in Childhood. Urol Int. 2015; 95 (2): 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430500.
17. Mureau MA, Slijper FM, Slob AK, Verhulst FC, Nijman RJ. Satisfaction with Penile Appearance after Hypospadias Surgery: The Patient and Surgeon View. J Urol. 1996; 155 (2); 703-706.
18. Baskin, L. Hypospadias: A Critical Analysis of Cosmetic Outcomes Using Photography. BJU international. 2001; 87: 534-539. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2001.00092.x.
19. Ververidis, M.; Dickson, A. P.; Gough, D. C. S. An Objective Assessment of the Results of Hypospadias Surgery. BJU Int. 2005; 96 (1): 135-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05582.x.
20. Weber DM, Landolt MA, Gobet R, Kalisch M, Greeff NK. The Penile Perception Score: An Instrument Enabling Evaluation by Surgeons and Patient Self-Assessment after Hypospadias Repair. J Urol . 2013; 189 (1): 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.178.