Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new technique for ureteral reconstruction using lingual mucosa grafts in a beagle model

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility of ureteral reconstruction using lingual mucosa graft (LMG) and evaluate the histological changes of the engrafted LMG in beagles.

Methods

Twelve male beagle dogs were randomly divided into groups A, B and C (n = 4). A ventral ureteral defect was created by excising half of the ureteral wall. The length of the defect was 3 cm, 6 cm, and 10 cm in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The LMGs were harvested and employed to repair the ureteral defects in onlay fashion. Two dogs per group were sacrificed after 6 months, with additional two dogs per group sacrificed after 12 months. Intravenous urography (IVU) and macroscopic examination were performed to evaluate renal function and ureteral patency. Histological changes in the engrafted LMGs during the tissue incorporation process were assessed by histological analysis.

Results

There were no postoperative complications. Only one dog in group C developed a mild stricture near the proximal anastomosis. In the remaining 11 animals, IVU showed normal renal function and a wide ureteral caliber without stricture or fistula. The diameter of the LMG-reconstructed ureter was greater than that of the proximal and distal ureter (each p value < 0.01). The LMGs survived in situ with newly formed capillaries. The epithelium of the lingual mucosa resembled the urothelium in postoperative 12 months.

Conclusion

This new technique for ureteral reconstruction using LMGs is feasible. This approach is a promising alternative clinical treatment for curing long ureteral strictures.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data and material during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

LMG:

Lingual mucosa graft

IVU:

Intravenous urography

IHC:

Immunohistochemical

UP-II:

Uroplakin-II

References

  1. Tyritzis SI, Wiklund NP (2015) Ureteral strictures revisited..trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel: a comprehensive review. J Endourol 29:124–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D'Addessi A, Bassi P (2011) Ureterorenoscopy: avoiding and managing the complications. Urol Int 87:251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rafique M, Arif MH (2002) Management of iatrogenic ureteric injuries associated with gynecological surgery. Int Urol Nephrol 34:31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Knight RB, Hudak SJ, Morey AF (2013) Strategies for open reconstruction of upper ureteral strictures. Urol Clin North Am 40:351–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Noble IG, Lee KT, Mundy AR (1997) Transuretero-ureterostomy: a review of 253 cases. Br J Urol 79:20–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Benson MC, Ring KS, Olsson CA (1990) Ureteral reconstruction and bypass: experience with ileal interposition, the Boari flap-psoas hitch and renal autotransplantation. J Urol 143:20–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Eisenberg ML, Lee KL, Zumrutbas AE, Meng MV, Freise CE, Stoller ML (2008) Long-term outcomes and late complications of laparoscopic nephrectomy with renal autotransplantation. J Urol 179:240–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Xu YM, Feng C, Kato H, Xie H, Zhang XR (2016) Long-term outcome of ileal ureteric replacement with an iliopsoas muscle tunnel antirefluxing technique for the treatment of long-segment ureteric strictures. Urology 88:201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Andrich DE, Mundy AR (2001) Substitution urethroplasty with buccal mucosal-free grafts. J Urol 165:1131–1133 (discussion 1133–1134)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kroepfl D, Loewen H, Klevecka V, Musch M (2010) Treatment of long ureteric strictures with buccal mucosal grafts. BJU Int 105:1452–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao LC, Yamaguchi Y, Bryk DJ, Adelstein SA, Stifelman MD (2015) Robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction using buccal mucosa. Urology 86:634–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Naude JH (1999) Buccal mucosal grafts in the treatment of ureteric lesions. BJU Int 83:751–754

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sadhu S, Pandit K, Roy MK, Bajoria SK (2011) Buccal mucosa ureteroplasty for the treatment of complex ureteric injury. Indian J Surg 73:71–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Agrawal V, Dassi V, Andankar MG (2010) Buccal mucosal graft onlay repair for a ureteric ischemic injury following a pyeloplasty. Indian J Urol 26:120–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Badawy AA, Abolyosr A, Saleem MD, Abuzeid AM (2010) Buccal mucosa graft for ureteral stricture substitution: initial experience. Urology 76:971–975 (discussion 975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dublin N, Stewart LH (2004) Oral complications after buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int 94:867–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wood DN, Allen SE, Andrich DE, Greenwell TJ, Mundy AR (2004) The morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative pain. J Urol 172:580–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 84:108–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Maarouf AM, Elsayed ER, Ragab A et al (2013) Buccal versus lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty for complex hypospadias repair. J Pediatr Urol 9:754–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar A, Goyal NK, Das SK, Trivedi S, Dwivedi US, Singh PB (2007) Oral complications after lingual mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. ANZ J Surg 77:970–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Xie M, Xu Y, Song L, Wang J, Lv X, Zhang Y (2014) Tissue-engineered buccal mucosa using silk fibroin matrices for urethral reconstruction in a canine model. J Surg Res 188:1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. de Jonge PK, Simaioforidis V, Geutjes PJ, Oosterwijk E, Feitz WF (2015) Recent advances in ureteral tissue engineering. Curr Urol Rep 16:465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hu X, Xu Y, Song L, Zhang H (2011) Combined buccal and lingual mucosa grafts for urethroplasty: an experimental study in dogs. J Surg Res 169:162–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Simone G, Leonardo C, Papalia R, Guaglianone S, Gallucci M (2008) Laparoscopic ureterolysis and omental wrapping. Urology 72:853–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gardikis S, Giatromanolaki A, Ypsilantis P et al (2005) Comparison of angiogenic activities after urethral reconstruction using free grafts in rabbits. Eur Urol 47:417–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Barbagli G, Sansalone S, Romano G, Lazzeri M (2012) Bulbar urethroplasty: transecting vs. nontransecting techniques. Curr Opin Urol 22:474–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fairbanks JL, Sheldon CA, Khoury AE, Gilbert A, Bove KE (1992) Free bladder mucosal graft biology: unique engraftment characteristics in rabbits. J Urol 148:663–666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu YM, Sa YL, Qiao Y et al (2005) Histopathological changes of free buccal mucosa and colonic mucosa grafts after translation to dog bladder. Chin Med J (Engl) 118:337–339

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81671216) to Bing Li. We are grateful to the funding for its financial support in the animal operation and analysis of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Jiefang Road 1277, Wuhan, 430022, China

    Yujie Xu, Lin Sun, Qiufeng Pan, Xiaoliang Hua & Bing Li

  2. Department of Urology, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, China

    Yujie Xu

Authors
  1. Yujie Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiufeng Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoliang Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: BL,YX; animal surgery: LS, QP; drafting of the manuscript: YX; acquisition of data and statistical analysis: YX, XH; critical revision of the manuscript: BL. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Y., Sun, L., Pan, Q. et al. A new technique for ureteral reconstruction using lingual mucosa grafts in a beagle model. Int Urol Nephrol 53, 83–89 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02619-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02619-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation