COMPARISON OF OUTCOME AFTER OCCLUSIVE HYDROCOLLOID DRESSING AND PETROLEUM-IMPREGNATED GAUZE WITH ZINC OXIDE ADHESIVE PLASTER FOLLOWING HYPOSPADIAS REPAIR

T SHAH; IU KHATTAK

doi:10.54112/pjicm.v5i01.76

Authors

T SHAH Department of Burns & Plastic Surgery Centre, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan
IU KHATTAK Department of Burns & Plastic Surgery Centre, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v5i01.76

Keywords:

Hypospadias, Wound Dressing, Hydrocolloid, Petroleum Gauze, Postoperative Complications, Pediatric Urology

Abstract

Background: Postoperative dressing plays a vital role in the healing process following hypospadias repair. An ideal dressing should minimize complications such as wound dehiscence, meatal stenosis, and urethrocutaneous fistula. However, the optimal dressing method remains a matter of debate. Objective: To compare the postoperative outcomes between occlusive hydrocolloid dressing and petroleum-impregnated gauze with zinc oxide adhesive plaster in children undergoing primary hypospadias repair. Study Design: Prospective non-randomized controlled trial. Setting: Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery Center, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, Pakistan. Duration of Study: 03-February-2025 to 03-May-2025. Methods: A total of 158 pediatric patients aged 1–14 years undergoing primary hypospadias repair were enrolled in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A (n = 79) received an occlusive hydrocolloid dressing, and Group B (n = 79) received petroleum-impregnated gauze with zinc oxide adhesive plaster. A standardized surgical technique was followed for all patients, and dressings were removed on postoperative day 3. Postoperative complications including urethrocutaneous fistula, meatal stenosis, and wound dehiscence were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test, with a p-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Urethrocutaneous fistula occurred in 10.1% of patients in Group A and 8.9% in Group B (p = 0.78). Meatal stenosis was observed in 2.5% of patients in Group A and 1.3% in Group B (p = 0.56). Wound dehiscence was reported in 3.8% of Group A and 2.5% of Group B patients (p = 0.64). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for any of the assessed outcomes. Conclusion: Both occlusive hydrocolloid dressing and petroleum-impregnated gauze with zinc oxide plaster demonstrated comparable outcomes in terms of urethrocutaneous fistula, meatal stenosis, and wound dehiscence following primary hypospadias repair. Either dressing modality may be considered based on clinical preference, cost, and availability.

References

Sparks TN, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM. Hypospadias. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(5):18-20.

Nelson CP, Park JM, Wan J, Bloom DA, Dunn RL, Wei JT. The increasing incidence of congenital penile anomalies in the United States. J Urol. 2005;174(4):1573-6.

Schnack TH, Poulsen G, Myrup C, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Familial coaggregation of cryptorchidism and hypospadias. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):109-13.

Snodgrass W, Macedo A, Hoebeke P, Mouriquand PD. Hypospadias dilemmas: a round table. J Pediatr Urol. 2011;7(2):145-57.

Steven L, Cherian A, Yankovic F, Mathur A, Kulkarni M, Cuckow P. Current practice in paediatric hypospadias surgery; a specialist survey. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9(6):1126-30.

Méndez-Gallart R, García-Palacios M, Rodríguez-Barca P, Estévez-Martínez E, Lema-Carril A, Bautista-Casasnovas A. A simple dressing for hypospadias surgery in children. Can Urol Assoc J. 2017;11(1-2):58-9

Chendake S, Kale T, Manavadaria Y, Motimath AS. Evaluation of Banana Leaves (Musa paradisiaca) as an Alternative Wound Dressing Material Compared to Conventional Petroleum Jelly Gauze Dressing in Contused, Lacerated and Sutured Wounds Over the Head, Neck and Face Region. Cureus. 2021;13(10):e18552.

Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M, Martel P, Guillaume JC, Meaume S, et al. Dressings for acute and chronic wounds: a systematic review. Arch Dermatol. 20071;143(10):1297-304

Holmes SP, Rivera S, Hooper PB, Slaven JE, Que SKT. Hydrocolloid dressing versus conventional wound care after dermatologic surgery. JAAD Int. 2021;6:37-42

Subramaniam R, Spinoit AF, Hoebeke P. Hypospadias repair: an overview of the actual techniques. Semin Plast Surg. 2011;25(3):206-212.

Ali SW, Aslam U, Khalid S, Jahangeer SM, Khan MA. Comparison of simple penile dressings following hypospadias repair: Does it really matter? Pak J Med Health Sci. 2023;17(05):87-9

lndriasari V, Evila Y, Diposarosa R, Syukriani YF, Rachmadi D. Outcomes of a 3-day transparent film dressing protocol after hypospadias repair. Sci Rep. 2024;14(l):24192-94.

Majid F, Siddique M, Yasmeen T, Tayyaba F, Zafar S, Attiq-ur- Rahman. Comparison of Outcome Complications between Snodgrass Technique and Mathieu’s Repair in Distal Hypospadias Repair. Med Forum. 2021;32(2):102-106.

Roychoudhury A, Patra R, Saha S, Sinhababu A, Rangari P. A Clinical Study of Complications of Snodgrass Urethroplasty for Hypospadias. IJMSDR. 2019;3(4):63-72.

Singh A, Halder S, Chumber S, Misra MC, Sharma LK, Srivastava A, et al. Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Hydrocolloid Occlusive Dressing Versus Conventional Gauze Dressing. Asian J Surg. 2004;27(4):326-32.