Urethral Mobilisation Versus Mathieu Technique for Repair of Distal Hypospadias

Overview

The aim of this research is to compare the surgical outcomes of urethral mobilization and the Mathieu technique in treating distal penile hypospadias. The study will evaluate complication rates such as fistula formation and meatal stenosis, assess functional outcomes related to urinary stream quality, and analyze cosmetic results including the appearance of the neomeatus. Ultimately, the goal is to provide evidence-based guidance for choosing the most appropriate technique to optimize surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Hypospadias is a common congenital malformation of the male genitalia, characterized by the abnormal positioning of the urethral meatus along the ventral surface of the penis . It affects approximately 1 in every 200 male births and is most frequently observed in its distal form, where the urethral opening is located near the glans . Surgical correction of hypospadias is necessary to ensure proper urinary function, achieve a cosmetically acceptable appearance, and prevent future complications such as chordee or abnormal curvature of the penis . There are several surgical techniques available for repairing distal penile hypospadias, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Among these, the Mathieu technique and the urethral mobilization technique are two commonly employed approaches. The Mathieu technique, first introduced in 1932, uses a perimeatal-based flap to reconstruct the urethra. It is a reliable and well-established method that is associated with a relatively low rate of complications, such as urethrocutaneous fistula and meatal stenosis. However, one of the main limitations of the Mathieu technique is the creation of a rounded or horizontal meatus, which is often considered less cosmetically pleasing compared to the more natural slit-like meatus formed by other techniques. Despite this drawback, the Mathieu technique remains a popular choice for surgeons, particularly in cases where the urethral plate is well-developed and no additional ventral curvature correction is required. The urethral mobilization technique, on the other hand, involves the proximal mobilization and distal advancement of the native urethra to the tip of the glans without using a preputial flap. This approach can be especially beneficial for boys who have already undergone circumcision, as it does not rely on the availability of a preputial skin flap. Studies suggest that urethral mobilization results in satisfactory functional outcomes and a lower incidence of certain complications, such as meatal stenosis and postoperative fistula formation. Furthermore, it is considered a straightforward procedure that avoids extensive tissue dissection, making it an appealing option for selected cases of distal hypospadias. While both techniques have demonstrated satisfactory outcomes, there is a need for a comprehensive comparison to evaluate their effectiveness and safety profiles. Existing literature suggests that urethral mobilization results in lower complication rates compared to the Mathieu technique in specific clinical settings. Additionally, a study by reported that the Mathieu technique with an incision of the urethral plate showed significantly fewer complications, including meatal stenosis and fistula formation, compared to the tubularized incised-plate (TIP) technique, further demonstrating the variability in outcomes based on surgical approach.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Outcomes

Central Contacts