Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Oral quality of life after buccal mucosal graft harvest for substitution urethroplasty. More than a bite?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of our study was to analyze the oral quality of life (QoL) in patients with urethral stricture treated with BMG by using a validated questionnaire (OIDP).

Materials and methods

A prospective, single-arm, observational single-centre study of a cohort of patients scheduled for BMG Urethroplasty was conducted. OIDP assesses the impact of oral conditions on daily activities including an oral QoL question (0–10). The questionnaire was self-administered before, 3 months postoperatively and at the end of the study. Means, pre- and postoperatively, were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze the risk factors for a low quality of life (<8) after surgery.

Results

We included 41 patients (2013–2017). The mean preoperative oral QoL was 9.33 points (SD1.16). Preoperative mean OIDP dimensional score and global score were 0,5 (SD:0.02) and 0,8%. The most frequently preoperative altered aspect was hygiene. Mean oral QoL, 3 months after surgery, was 8,56 (SD1.89) and OIDP dimensional score and global score were 0,67 (SD0.21) and 1,1%. Mean oral QoL at the end of the study (mean 3,12 years) was 8,50 (SD1.13). OIDP dimensional score and global score were 0,7 (SD 0.16) and 1,1%.The most frequently altered aspect at the end of the study was eating. No statistical (p = 0.07) decrease in oral QoL was found. The increase in OIDP dimensional and global score was also not statistically significant. Neither age nor smoking, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular morbidity, previous OIDP score, width, length of the graft, or surgery success could explain a low oral QoL alter graft harvesting.

Conclusions

BMG harvesting is not free of problems at the donor site. Eating seems to be the most affected aspect after surgery. Nevertheless, those sequelae do not induce a reduction in oral QoL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chapple C, Andrich D, Atala A et al (2014) SIU/ICUD consultation on urethral strictures: the management of anterior urethral stricture disease using substitution urethroplasty. Urology 83(3 Suppl):S31–S47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dublin N, Stewart LH (2004) Oral complications after buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int 94(6):867 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Markiewicz MR, DeSantis JL, Margarone JE, Pogrel MA, Chuang SK (2008) Morbidity associated with oral mucosa harvest for urological re-construction: an overview. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:739–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbagli G, Vallasciani S, Romano G, Fabbri F, Guazzoni G, Lazzeri M (2010) Morbidity of oral mucosa graft harvesting from a single cheek. Eur Urol 58:33–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Locker D (1988) Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 5:3–18

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Montero J, Bravo M, Vicente MP, Galindo MP, Lopez JF, Albaladejo A (2010) Dimensional structure of the oral health-related quality of life in healthy spanish workers. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. John MT (2007) Exploring dimensions of oral health-related quality of life using expert’s opinion. Qual Life Res 16:697–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Astrom AN, Mtaya M (2009) Factorial structure and cross-cultural invariance of the oral impact on daily performance. Eur J Oral Sci 117:293–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lumen N, Vierstraete-Verlinde S, Oosterlinck W, Hoebeke P, Palminteri E, Goes C et al (2016) Buccal versus lingual mucosa graft in anterior urethroplasty: a prospective comparison of surgical outcome and donor-site morbidity. J Urol 195(1):112–117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Soave A, Dahlem R, Pinnschmidt HO, Rink M, Langetepe J, Engel O et al (2018) Substitution urethroplasty with closure versus nonclosure of the buccal mucosa graft harvest site: a randomized controlled trial with a detailed analysis of oral pain and morbidity. Eur Urol 73(6):910–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthr Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S240–S252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosenbaum CM, Schimd M, Judwig TA, Kluth LA, Dahlem R, Fisch M et al (2016) Redo BMG urethroplasty: success rate, oral morbidity and functional outcomes. BJU Int 118(5):797–803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Akhtar A, Khattar N, Goel H, Rao S, Tanwar R, Sood R (2017) Looking beyond oral mucosa: initial results of everted saphenous vein graft urethroplasty (eSVGU) in long anterior urethral strictures. Arab J Urol 15(3):228–235 (9)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Xu Y, Shen Z, Liu G, Liu B, Hua X, Xiang Y et al (2017) Urethral reconstruction using everted saphenous vein graft in a rabbit model: one year outcomes. Urol Int 99(1):110–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Atala A, Danilevskiy M, Lyundup A, Glybochko P, Butnaru D, Vinarov A et al (2017) The potential role of tissue-engineered urethral substitution: clinical and preclinical studies. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 11(1):3–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Levy AC, Vanni AJ (2018) Refractory urethral stricture management: indications for alternative grafts and flaps. Curr Urol Rep 19(3):20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

EM: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript writing/editing. MAB: project development, data analysis, data collection, manuscript writing/editing. LF-E: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript writing/editing. EM-C:project development, data collection or management. SA: project development, data collection or management. EB: project development, data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing. FB: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Morán.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Yes.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morán, E., Bonillo, M., Fernández-Estevan, L. et al. Oral quality of life after buccal mucosal graft harvest for substitution urethroplasty. More than a bite?. World J Urol 37, 385–389 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2381-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2381-9

Keywords

Navigation