Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2005; 38(02): 162-164
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1699095
Brief Report
Association of Plastic Surgeons of India

Peha-haft bandage as a new dressing for pediatric hypospadias repair

A N Gangopadhyay
Department of Paediatric Surgery, University Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-U.P., India
,
S Sharma
Department of Paediatric Surgery, University Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-U.P., India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 January 2020 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Hypospadias Repair has varied alternatives in every step including dressing.

Objective: To compare Peha-Haft cohesive dressing with compressed gauze penile wrap dressing in hypospadias repair.

Patients and methods: Peha-Haft cohesive dressing was prospectively used in 60 subjects (Group A) over a period of three and a half years from Jan.2001 to July 2004 and compared with 60 subjects of compressed gauze dressing with micropore adhesive (Group B). Primary outcome measures were ease of application, cost, comfort with dressing, dressing related early complications, pain during dressing removal assessed by FLACC score and time taken during removal.

Results: Time taken during dressing removal was 30 + 11 seconds in Group A and 180 + 26 seconds in Group B. FLACC score was 3 + 2 in Group A and 7 + 3 in Group B. No sedation was required in the Group A while it was required in 26 cases in Group B

Conclusion: Peha-Haft dressing was superior in terms of the ease of application, cost, comfort with dressing, dressing related early complications, time consumed and pain during dressing removal.

KEYWORDS

Hypospadias dressing - Peha-Haft bandage
 
  • 1 Merkel SM, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, Malviya S. The FLACC: A behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs 1997; 23: 293-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Van Savage JG, Palanca LG, Slaughenhoupt BL. A prospective randomized trial of dressing versus no dressings for hypospadias repair. J Urol 2000; 164: 981-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sanders C.. Comparison of dressing removal following hypospadias repair. Br J Nurs 2003; 12 S 21-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Skrobisz P, Mikolajczyk A, Fryc D, Bilski P. Use of polyurethane Biolusive foil from Johnson and Johnson, as a dressing after surgery for hypospadias in children. Wiad Lek 1998; 51: 120-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Davalbhakta A, Summerlad BC. Cavi-Care dressing for hypospadias repair. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52: 325-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Searles JM, Mackinnon AE. The "SANAV "of hypospadias dressing. BJU Int 2001; 87: 531-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Singh RB, Khatri HL, Sethi R. Glove-finger dressing in pediatric hypospadias. Pediatr Surg Int. 2002; 18: 218-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ohsumi N.. Postoperative compressive penile dressing using fibrin seal (Tisseal) and tulle gauze for hypospadias repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101: 1737-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vordermerk JS. Adhesive membrane: a new dressing for hypospadias. Urology 1982; 20: 86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schumacher S, Fisch M, Schurig E, Hohenfellner R. Properties and acceptance of Melolin wound dressing in postoperative management of male urethral reconstruction. Urologe A 1996; 35: 14-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gaylis FD, Zaontz MD, Dalton D. etal Silicone foam dressing for penis after reconstructive pediatric surgery. Urology 1989; 33: 296-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar