Abstract
Purpose
We report a comprehensive review of our experience with labial mucosa graft urethroplasty to evaluate the indications for this kind of substitution urethroplasty, and the possible complications and risk factors for an untoward recipient site outcome both in children and adults.
Materials and methods
Complications were retrospectively assessed by chart review. Patients with and without complications were compared with respect to age at surgery, indication for surgery (epispadias vs. hypospadias vs. urethral stricture), graft length and configuration (tube vs. patch). Moreover, in cases with urethral stricture a comparison was made according to the level of the stricture (penile vs. bulbar).
Results
After a median follow-up of 36 (6–90) months, the overall success rate was 66%. Complications were observed in 39 (34%) patients, of whom 18 (16%) required additional surgical procedures. Complications appeared to be unrelated to patient age at surgery, indication for surgery, graft length, and the urethral level of the stricture. Use of the graft as a tube was the single factor significantly more frequent in patients experiencing complications, particularly in the urethral defects associated with hypospadias where use of a tube corresponded to an odd ratio of 5.86 (95% CI 1.5–23.4).
Conclusions
Oral grafts harvested from the lower lip are a versatile tissue for the repair of urethral defects associated with either urethral malformations or strictures, both in children and adults. Use of the graft as an on-lay seems preferable particularly in hypospadias repairs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Markiewicz MR, Lukose MA, Margarone JE 3rd et al (2007) The oral mucosa graft: a systematic review. J Urol 178:387–394. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.094
Duckett JW, Coplen D, Ewalt D et al (1995) Buccal mucosal urethral replacement. J Urol 153:1660–1663. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67497-4
Filipas D, Fisch M, Fichtner J et al (1999) The histology and immunohistochemistry of free buccal mucosa and full-skin grafts after exposure to urine. BJU Int 84:108–112. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410X.1999.00079.x
Mokhless IA, Kader MA, Fahmy N et al (2007) The multistage use of buccal mucosa grafts for complex hypospadias: histological changes. J Urol 177:1496–1499. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.079
Castagnetti M, Ghirardo V, Capizzi A et al (2008) Donor site outcome after oral mucosa harvest for urethroplasty in children and adults. J Urol 180:2624–2628. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.053
Castagnetti M, Longo R, Tocco A et al (2008) Long-term (>5 years) donor site outcome after mandibular labial mucosa graft harvesting for urethral reconstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol 4:442–444. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.06.001
Fichtner J, Filipas D, Fisch M et al (2004) Long-term outcome of ventral buccal mucosa onlay graft urethroplasty for urethral stricture repair. Urology 64:648–650. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.05.011
Fichtner J, Filipas D, Fisch M et al (2004) Long-term followup of buccal mucosa onlay graft for hypospadias repair: analysis of complications. J Urol 172:1970–1972. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000142451.78966.fb
Nelson CP, Bloom DA, Kinast R et al (2005) Long-term patient reported outcome and satisfaction after oral mucosa graft urethroplasty for hypospadias. J Urol 174:1075–1078. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000169421.27043.f2
Fichtner J, Fisch M, Filipas D et al (1998) Refinements in buccal mucosal grafts urethroplasty for hypospadias repair. World J Urol 16:192–194. doi:10.1007/s003450050051
Barbagli G, Selli C, Tosto A et al (1996) Dorsal free graft urethroplasty. J Urol 155:123–126. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66566-2
Barbagli G, Palminteri E, Guazzoni G et al (2005) Bulbar urethroplasty using buccal mucosa grafts placed on the ventral, dorsal or lateral surface of the urethra: are results affected by the surgical technique? J Urol 174:955–957. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000169422.46721.d7
Patterson JM, Chapple CR (2008) Surgical techniques in substitution urethroplasty using buccal mucosa for the treatment of anterior urethral strictures. Eur Urol 53:1162–1171. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.011
Palminteri E, Lazzeri M, Guazzoni G et al (2002) New 2-stage buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty. J Urol 167:130–132. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65397-9
Haxhirexha KN, Castagnetti M, Rigamonti W et al (2008) Two-stage repair in hypospadias. Indian J Urol 24:226–232
Simonato A, Gregori A, Lissiani A et al (2006) The tongue as an alternative donor site for graft urethroplasty: a pilot study. J Urol 175:589–592. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00166-7
Johal NS, Nitkunan T, O’Malley K et al (2006) The two-stage repair for severe primary hypospadias. Eur Urol 50:366–371. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.002
Bhargava S, Patterson JM, Inman RD et al (2008) Tissue-engineered buccal mucosa urethroplasty-clinical outcomes. Eur Urol 53:1263–1269. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.061
Raber M, Naspro R, Scapaticci E et al (2005) Dorsal onlay graft urethroplasty using penile skin or buccal mucosa for repair of bulbar urethral stricture: results of a prospective single center study. Eur Urol 48:1013–1017. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.05.003
Wolffenbuttel KP, Wondergem N, Hoefnagels JJ et al (2006) Abnormal urine flow in boys with distal hypospadias before and after correction. J Urol 176:1733–1736. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00614-8
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castagnetti, M., Rigamonti, W. Aptness and complications of labial mucosa grafts for the repair of anterior urethral defects in children and adults: single centre experience with 115 cases. World J Urol 27, 799–803 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0401-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0401-5