Assessment of Post-Operative Cosmetic Results in Hypospadias Patients Using “HOPE” Score

Mohammad Zeeshan Haider; Esha Ali; Noor Muhammad; Mohammad Aslam

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v6i8.2213

Authors

Mohammad Zeeshan Haider Department of Plastic Surgery, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
Esha Ali Department of Plastic Surgery, Muhammad College of Medicine and Mohammad Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
Noor Muhammad Department of Plastic Surgery, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan
Mohammad Aslam Department of Plastic Surgery, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i8.2213

Keywords:

Hypospadias, Hope Score, penile

Abstract

Hypospadias is a common congenital anomaly of the male urethra, and surgical correction aims to achieve both functional and optimal cosmetic outcomes. The Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score is a validated tool for assessing postoperative cosmetic appearance. However, data regarding cosmetic outcomes following staged repair techniques remain limited. Objective: To evaluate the cosmetic appearance in hypospadias patients using the Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation (HOPE) score. Methods: This descriptive case series was conducted in the Plastic Surgery Unit at Lady Reading Hospital from October 20, 2018, to April 20, 2019, after obtaining ethical approval. Patients diagnosed with hypospadias and scheduled for Bracka two-stage repair were included. Preoperative assessment and standardised photographs were obtained and evaluated using the HOPE score. A single surgeon performed all surgeries. Postoperative follow-up was conducted at 1 week, 3 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Cosmetic outcomes were assessed at 6 months postoperatively using standardised photographs. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and analysed with SPSS version 25. Mean scores were compared, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The mean patient age was 9.0 ± 4.52 years, with the majority of patients aged 3-10 years. The mean penile curvature and torsion were 38 ± 9.17 degrees. A distal urethral meatus was observed in 80% of cases. Mild metalar, glanular, and skin abnormalities were noted in 60% of patients. HOPE score analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in cosmetic outcomes across different age groups (p = 0.10). Conclusion: The cosmetic outcomes following staged hypospadias repair, as assessed by the HOPE score, were generally satisfactory and not significantly influenced by patient age. Long-term follow-up and comprehensive patient counselling are essential for optimal outcomes. Prospective studies with extended follow-up are recommended to evaluate long-term cosmetic and functional outcomes better.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Chen Y, Zhang H, Zhang W, Ning W, Chen Y. The prevalence of hypospadias in newborn males in Hangzhou, China, from 2011 to 2020: a cross-sectional population-based study. J Pediatr Urol. 2023;19(5):583.e1-583.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2023.06.009

2. Hadidi AT. Morphology of hypospadias. In: Hadidi AT, editor. Hypospadias surgery: an illustrated textbook. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 137-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94248-9

3. Su JJ, Netto JMB, Hittelman AB. Urologic anomalies and surgical implications. In: Mattei P, editor. Surgical and perioperative management of patients with anatomic anomalies. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 267-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55660-0_13

4. Çayan F, Çayan S. Prenatal diagnosis of penoscrotal hypospadias and review of the literature. Turk J Urol. 2013;39(2):116-118. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.028

5. Andersson M. Hypospadias surgery: long-term outcome focusing on adolescence [thesis]. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg; 2018.

6. Radmayr C, Bogaert G, Dogan HS, Kocvara R, Nijman JM, Stein R, et al. EAU guidelines on paediatric urology. Arnhem (NL): EAU Guidelines Office; 2023.

7. Tariq MN, Zaidi SFZ, Khan MD, Awan A, Ahmad M, Malik I, et al. Scoring system for evaluating cosmetic appearance in operated hypospadias patients: cosmetic outcomes in hypospadias surgery. J Health Rehabil Res. 2024;4(3):1-5. https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i3.1532

8. Krull S, Rissmann A, Krause H, Mohnike K, Roehl FW, Koehn A, et al. Outcome after hypospadias repair: evaluation using the hypospadias objective penile evaluation score. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2018;28(3):268-272. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1602252

9. Baskin LS, Ebbers MB. Hypospadias: anatomy, etiology, and technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2006;41(3):463-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.11.059

10. Baskin LS. Hypospadias: a critical analysis of cosmetic outcomes using photography. BJU Int. 2001;87(6):534-539. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2001.00092.x

11. Springer A. Assessment of outcome in hypospadias surgery: a review. Front Pediatr. 2014;2:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2014.00002

12. Canning DA. Re: Penile appearance after hypospadias correction from a parent's point of view: comparison of the hypospadias objective penile evaluation score and parents' penile perception score. J Urol. 2017;197(6):1562-1563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.055

13. Ardelt PU, Cederqvist M, Barth M, Frankenschmidt A. The SIGHT questionnaire: a novel assessment tool for satisfaction in genital hypospadias treatment. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(1):33.e1-33.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.10.011

14. Robinson AJ, Harry LE, Stevenson JH. Assessment of long-term function following hypospadias reconstruction: do flow rates, flow quality, and cosmesis improve with time? Results from the modified Bretteville technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(1):120-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.07.011

15. Holland AJ, Smith GHH, Ross FI, Cass DT. HOSE: an objective scoring system for evaluating the results of hypospadias surgery. BJU Int. 2001;88(3):255-258. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2001.02280.x

16. Weber DM, Schönbucher VB, Landolt MA, Gobet R. The Pediatric Penile Perception Score: an instrument for patient self-assessment and surgeon evaluation after hypospadias repair. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1080-1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.060

17. van der Toorn F, de Jong TPVM, de Gier RPE, Callewaert PR, van der Horst HJR, Steffens MGA, et al. Introducing the HOPE (Hypospadias Objective Penile Evaluation) score: a validation study of an objective scoring system for evaluating cosmetic appearance in hypospadias patients. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9(6 Pt B):1006-1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.01.015

18. Arlen AM, Kirsch AJ, Leong T, Broecker BH, Smith EA, Elmore JM. Further analysis of the Glans-Urethral Meatus-Shaft (GMS) hypospadias score: correlation with postoperative complications. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):71.e1-71.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.11.015

19. Zheng X, Ji P, Mao H, Wu J. Evaluation of penile erection rigidity in healthy men using virtual touch tissue quantification. Radiol Oncol. 2012;46(2):114-118. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10019-012-0012-4

20. Effendi R, Situmorang GR, Wahyudi I, Rodjani A, Raharja PAR, Abbas TO. Adult sexual function following hypospadias repair in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term patient outcomes. Urology. 2025;204:242-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.05.015