Could the grafted Snodgrass technique be a standard approach for repair of distal hypospadias with a narrow urethral plate? A comparative study.
Tarek Ahmed Mahmoud, Ahmed Mamdouh Abd Elhamed, Ahmed Shawky Gebaly et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This randomized comparative study at Sohag University Hospitals evaluated Snodgraft versus classic Snodgrass repair in patients with distal hypospadias and a narrow urethral plate (<8 mm). Cosmetic and functional outcomes were assessed with the HOPE score during follow-up. Complications occurred in 13.3% of the classic-repair group and 10.7% of the Snodgraft group; successful outcomes were reported in 86.7% and 89.3%, respectively, with no significant HOPE-score difference (p value = 0.695). Snodgraft took longer to perform and showed no clear superiority.
Key findings
- Mean operative time was 108.6 ± 16.7 min with Snodgraft versus 75.6 ± 10.9 min with classic Snodgrass repair (p value < 0.001).
- Complications occurred in 10 cases (13.3%) after classic repair and eight cases (10.7%) after Snodgraft.
- Successful outcomes were reported in 86.7% of the classic-repair group and 89.3% of the Snodgraft group; HOPE scores did not differ significantly (p value = 0.695).
Why it matters
For patients with a narrow urethral plate, the comparison suggests that Snodgraft can achieve outcomes similar to classic Snodgrass repair, but requires more operative time. The findings help frame the trade-off between technical demands and observed outcomes without establishing an advantage that would support routine preference for either approach.
What to keep in mind
Follow-up was approximately 11 months, limiting assessment of longer-term outcomes.