LAUSR

BACKGROUND Using the Snodgraft technique in patients with urethral plate less than 8 mm to repair distal hypospadias is still debatable. Some authors assume that augmentation may be beneficial. We aimed to compare the outcomes of the Snodgrass vs Snodgraft procedure in patients with a narrow urethral plate less than 8 mm. METHODOLOGY This prospective randomized study included 60 children who had been treated by the Snodgrass or Snodgraft procedure for repair of distal penile hypospadias with narrow urethral plate from March 2017 to September 2018. They were randomized into two subgroups. Group 1 (30 patients) underwent tubularized incised plate urethroplasty, whereas the second group (30 patients) underwent the Snodgraft procedure by using the inner prepuce. Operative details, postoperative period, and complications were reported and statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. RESULTS The operative time was longer for patients who underwent the Snodgraft procedure: 78 (55-95) and 110 (80-140) minutes in groups 1 and 2, respectively. In group 1, there was one case of meatal stenosis which was resolved by urethral dilation using the local anesthetic cream in the outpatient clinic. In addition, there was another case of distal penile fistula. In group 2, there was a case of complete wound disruption and another of distal penile fistula. There was no significant difference in the complication rate in any group. CONCLUSION The operative time was longer in group 2 than in group 1 but with comparable outcomes. The Snodgraft procedure is not superior to the Snodgrass operation in the narrow healthy urethral plate.