Oral quality of life after buccal mucosal graft harvest for substitution urethroplasty. More than a bite?
- 35 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsUrethroplasty Buccal mucosal graft Oral quality of life OIDP Questionnaire Donor site
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
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
- 5.Locker D (1988) Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 5:3–18Google 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 CrossRefGoogle 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–S252CrossRefGoogle Scholar