Penile nerve block predicts higher revision surgery rate following distal hypospadias repair when compared with caudal epidural block: A consecutive cohort study. Issue 4 (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ngoo, Alexander; Borzi, Peter; McBride, Craig A.; Patel, Bhaveshkumar
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 16:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 439.e1
• Page End: 439.e6
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: Pediatric -- urology -- Hypospadias -- Caudal block -- Penile block -- Pediatric anesthesia -- Distal hypospadias; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.05.150
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Introduction: Recent literature has suggested caudal epidural blocks (CEB) may increase revision surgery rates following hypospadias repair. We sought to investigate this using a large, multi-surgeon series. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to identify the impact of CEB or penile nerve blocks (PNB) on revision surgery rates following distal hypospadias repair at our centre. Study design: A prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients undergoing primary hypospadias repairs under the supervision of 8 different paediatric surgeons at our centre between January 2015 and December 2018 was queried for the following potential risk factors: Age at surgery, American Society of Anaesthesiologist's (ASA) grade, hypospadias type, type of surgery, CEB or PNB, and training level of primary surgeon. Revision surgery was defined as reoperation for fistulas, dehiscence, strictures or meatal stenosis. Univariate and Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression. Results: 188 patients underwent primary distal hypospadias repair over the study time period. Patients were aged between 7 months and 15 years of age. Median age at surgery was 14 months. Revision surgery was performed for 31 patients (16.5%). Indications were urethrocutaneous fistula (n = 17, 9.0%), meatal stenosis or stricture (n = 9, 4.8%) and glans dehiscence (n = 5, 2.7%). 114 (60.6%) received a penile block and 74 (39.4%) a caudal block. On univariate analysis, PNB (HR 2.55 95% CI 1.04–6.27, p = 0.04) was statistically significant for revision surgery. This association remained significant on multivariate analysis (HR 2.74 95% CI 1.09–6.92, p = 0.03). All other prognostic factors examined were not statistically significant for revision surgery. Discussion: Our findings suggest PNB are associated with higher revision surgery rates following distal hypospadias repair. This contrasts with the findings of other authors. Conclusion: Our study is the first to demonstrate an association between PNB and higher revision surgery rates following distal hypospadias repair. Summary Figure Flow-Diagram Summarizing Hypothesized Mechanisms by which Penile Nerve Block (PNB) predicts higher revision surgery rates compared with Caudal Epidural Block (CEB). Note explanations may be interrelated. Image 1