. 2024 Mar 1;7(1):e000659. doi: 10.1136/wjps-2023-000659

Table 2.

Summary outcomes

	Study	Technique	Type of repair	Total (n)	UCF	MS	Stricture	GD	WI	Redness/ erythema	Bleeding	Swelling/edema	Flap necrosis	Total complications
1	Cimador et al. ¹²	PG	Mathieu technique: 277 patients (subcoronal hypospadias) Transverse preputial flap (tubularized or onlay): 59 patients (midshaft or proximal hypospadias)	254	17	–	12	–	–	–	–	–	–	29
1	Cimador et al. ¹²	PDS		82	6	–	2	–	–	–	–	–	–	8
2	Khalid et al. ⁹	PG	Snodgrass repair of subcoronal hypospadias	100	29	6	–	–	7	–	–	–	–	42
2	Khalid et al. ⁹	PDS	Snodgrass repair of subcoronal hypospadias	100	26	9	–	–	4	–	–	–	–	39
3	Fakhr¹⁴	PG	Only anterior hypospadias (surgery not mentioned)	10	0	–	–	–	5	4	9	5	3	26
3	Fakhr¹⁴	PDS	Only anterior hypospadias (surgery not mentioned)	10	0	–	–	–	2	3	5	0	0	10
4	Shirazi et al. ¹⁵	PG	All underwent TIP with dartos flap for distal, mid-penile, and TVS flap for proximal hypospadias	298	27	8	6	4	–	–	–	–	–	45
4	Shirazi et al. ¹⁵	PDS		285	12	2	1	0	–	–	–	–	–	15
5	Mohamed Ali Alaraby et al. ¹³	PG	Single-stage repair: 79.3% Multistage repair: 20.7%. MAGPI: 47.6% TIP: 31.4% Thiersch-Duplay: 20% Mathieu repair: 1%	50	14	9	–	–	2	–	0	0	–	17
5	Mohamed Ali Alaraby et al. ¹³	PDS		55	5	2	–	–	2	–	4	11	–	6

GD, glans dehiscence; MAGPI, meatal advancement and glanduloplasty; MS, meatal stenosis; PDS, polydioxanone; PG, polyglactin; TIP, tubularized incised plate; UCF, urethrocutaneous fistula; WI, wound infection.