Table 2.
Recent hypospadias assessment tools and their pros and cons.
| Score | Items | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOSE (27) | Meatal location | Inter-observer reliability tested | Limited items |
| Meatal shape | No general appearance | ||
| Urinary stream | No penis size | ||
| Erection/curvature | No adequate preoperative assessment | ||
| Fistula | |||
| Mureau (26) | Flaccid penile size | Assessment of penile size Not validated | Not tested for reliability and validity No erection/curvature Surgically non-correctable items No adequate preoperative assessment |
| Penile thickness | |||
| Glandular size | |||
| Glandular shape | |||
| Position of meatus | |||
| Scars | |||
| Scrotum/testis | |||
| General appearance | |||
| PPPS | Length of penis | High inter-rater reliability | Inherent subjective assessment |
| Position and shape of meatus | Validated for surgeon and patient | No adequate preoperative assessment | |
| Glandular shape | |||
| Erection/curvature | |||
| General appearance | |||
| HOPE | Position of meatus | Reference picture Implemented into prospective national database | Time consuming No adequate preoperative assessment |
| Meatal shape | |||
| Shape of glans | |||
| Shape of skin | |||
| Penile torsion | |||
| Erection/curvature | |||
| Hadidi score | Cosmesis and function | Easy to apply | Not validated and prone to subjectiveness |