Systematic review of the comparison between simultaneous and staged surgical interventions for proximal hypospadias in children: Duckett’s procedure versus Bracka’s procedure

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Selecting a treatment method for proximal hypospadias in children remains challenging. This systematic review compares the outcomes of treating proximal hypospadias with the Duckett and Bracka techniques. Literature sources published between 2008 and 2023 were searched through PubMed, Google Scholar, and eLibrary using the following keywords in English: “proximal hypospadias,” “repair OR urethroplasty,” and “outcomes OR complications.” For Russian-language sources, the keywords were “proximal hypospadias,” “urethroplasty,” “complications,” “Duckett operation,” and “Bracka operation,” After screening, four full-text articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Data from 385 patients was analyzed: 218 underwent Duckett repair and 167 underwent Bracka repair. The overall complication rate in the postoperative period was 31.11% and 10.18% for Duckett and Bracka operation, respectively. No study has been performed at a high methodological level. Currently, studies comparing single-stage and staged surgeries for proximal hypospadias are lacking. It is crucial to conduct multicenter or comparative studies that involve closer collaboration between clinics, include a larger number of patients, and have a longer followup period.

About the authors

Irina M. Pepelyaeva

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Filatov Children’s Municipal Hospital

Author for correspondence.
Email: irina_pepelyaeva@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9397-5709
SPIN-code: 9612-6850
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

Semen L. Kovarskiy

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Filatov Children’s Municipal Hospital

Email: semen3150@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6310-7110
SPIN-code: 9308-5014

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. Yu X, Nassar N, Mastroiacovo P, et al. Hypospadias prevalence and trends in international birth defect surveillance systems, 1980–2010. Eur Urol. 2019;76(4):482–490. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.027
  2. Duckett JW. The current hype in hypospadiology. Br J Urol. 1995;76(6):1–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1995.tb07812.x
  3. Geng H, Cheng S, Yang X, Huang Y. The effect of the Duckett procedure on the outcome and prognosis of children with suburethral cleft. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022;2022:7444104. doi: 10.1155/2022/7444104
  4. Bracka A. Hypospadias repair: the two-stage alternative. Br J Urol. 1995;76(6):31–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1995.tb07815.x
  5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
  6. Wu Y, Guan Y, Wang X, et al. Repair of proximal hypospadias with single-stage (Duckett’s method) or Bracka two-stage: a retrospective comparative cohort study. Transl Pediatr. 2023;12(3):387–395. doi: 10.21037/tp-23-75
  7. Fathi K, Burger AE, Kulkarni MS, Mathur AB. Duckett versus Bracka technique for proximal hypospadias repair: A single centreexperience. J Pediat Surg Specialities. 2008;(2):11–13.
  8. Rudin YE, Maruhnenko DV, Saiedov KM. Choosing the method of correction of proximal hypospadias in children. Experimental and clinical urology. 2014;(1):81–88. EDN: SDVYPN
  9. Sadeghi A, Mirshemirani A, Khaleghnejad Tabari A, et al. Duckett versus modified Bracka technique for proximal hypospadias repair a 10-year experience. Iran J Pediatr. 2017;27(6):e7752. doi: 10.5812/ijp.7752
  10. Babu R, Chandrasekharam VVS. Meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of single stage (foreskin pedicled tube) versus two stage (foreskin free graft & foreskin pedicled flap) repair for proximal hypospadias in the last decade. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(5):681–689. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.05.014
  11. Liao AY, Smith GH. Urethrocutaneous fistulae after hypospadias repair: When do they occur? J Paediatr Child Health. 2016;52(5):556–560. doi: 10.1111/jpc.13102
  12. Misra D, Elbourne C, Vareli A, et al. Challenges in managing proximal hypospadias: A 17-year single-center experience. J Pediatr Surg. 2019;54(10):2125–2129. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.04.019
  13. Wani SA, Baba AA, Mufti GN, et al. Bracka verses Byar’s two-stage repair in proximal hypospadias associated with severe chordee: a randomized comparative study. Pediatr Surg Int. 2020;36(8):965–970. doi: 10.1007/s00383-020-04697-x
  14. Ding Y, Gu S, Xia X, Yu Z. Comparison of penile appearance and outcomes between prefabricated urethra and pre- implanted urethral plate for treatment of children with severe hypospadias: a retrospective study. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:719551. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.719551

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Figure. Study stages according to the PRISMA criteria

Download (318KB)

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies