6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Anterior Urethroplasty Using a New Tissue Engineered Oral Mucosa Graft: Surgical Techniques and Outcomes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tissue-engineered buccal mucosa urethroplasty-clinical outcomes.

          Whilst buccal mucosa is the most versatile tissue for urethral replacement, the quest continues for an ideal tissue replacement for the urethra when substantial tissue transfer is needed. Previously we described the development of autologous tissue-engineered buccal mucosa (TEBM). Here we report clinical outcomes of the first human series of its use in substitution urethroplasty. Five patients with urethral stricture secondary to lichen sclerosus (LS) awaiting substantial substitution urethroplasty elected to undergo urethroplasty using TEBM, with full ethics committee support. Buccal mucosa biopsies (0.5 cm) were obtained from each patient. Keratinocytes and fibroblasts were isolated and cultured, seeded onto sterilised donor de-epidermised dermis, and maintained at air-liquid interface for 7-10 d to obtain full-thickness grafts. These grafts were used for urethroplasty in a one-stage (n=2) or a two-stage procedure (n=3). Follow-up was performed at 2 and 6 wk, at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo, and every 6 mo thereafter. Follow-up ranged from 32 to 37 mo (mean, 33.6). The initial graft take was 100%, as assessed by visual inspection. Subsequently, one patient had complete excision of the grafted urethra and one required partial graft excision, for fibrosis and hyperproliferation of tissue, respectively. Three patients have a patent urethra with the TEBM graft in situ, although all three required some form of instrumentation. Whilst TEBM may in the future offer a clinically useful autologous urethral replacement tissue, in this group of patients with LS urethral strictures, it was not without complications, namely fibrosis and contraction in two of five patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dorsal free graft urethroplasty for urethral stricture by ventral sagittal urethrotomy approach.

            To explore the feasibility of applying a dorsal free graft to treat urethral stricture by the ventral sagittal urethrotomy approach without mobilizing the urethra. Twelve patients with long or multiple strictures of the anterior urethra were treated by a dorsal free full-thickness preputial or buccal mucosa graft. The urethra was not separated from the corporal bodies and was opened in the midline over the stricture. The floor of the urethra was incised, and an elliptical raw area was created over the tunica on which a free full-thickness graft of preputial or buccal mucosa was secured. The urethra was retubularized in one stage. After a follow-up of 8 to 40 months, one recurrence developed and required dilation. The ventral sagittal urethrotomy approach for dorsal free graft urethroplasty is not only feasible and successful, but is easy to perform.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative pain.

              We assess the medium and long-term morbidity of buccal mucosal graft (BMG) harvest for urethroplasty, and evaluate the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative pain. A questionnaire was mailed to 110 men who underwent BMG urethroplasty between January 1, 1997 and August 31, 2002. Demographic data and side effects of BMG harvest, including oral pain, sensation and intake, were assessed postoperatively. A prospective study was then performed to compare 20 unselected men whose BMG donor site was closed with a group of 20 men in whom it was left open using a 5-point analog pain score that was completed twice daily for the first 5 postoperative days. A total of 49 men with a median age of 49 years (range 23 to 73) returned questionnaires relating to 57 BMG harvests. Of the graft harvests 47 (83%) were associated with postoperative pain, which was worse than expected in 24 (51%). Of the 57 patients 51 (90%) resumed oral liquid intake within 24 hours and 44 (77%) resumed normal diet within 1 week. Postoperative side effects included perioral numbness in 39 (68%) patients with 15 (26%) having residual numbness after 6 months, initial difficulty with mouth opening in 38 (67%) with 5 (9%) having persistent problems, changes in salivation in 6 (11%) and mucous retention cyst that required excision in 1 (2%). The men in the prospective donor site study had a median age of 51 years (range 24 to 70). Mean pain score for patients with donor site closure was 3.68 and was significantly higher than that for patients without donor site closure (2.26, p < 0.01). Buccal mucosal graft harvest is not a pain-free procedure. Closure of the harvest donor site appears to worsen this pain and it may be best to leave harvest sites open. The main long-term complications are perioral numbness, persistent difficulty with mouth opening and change in salivary function.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Urology
                Journal of Urology
                Elsevier BV
                0022-5347
                1527-3792
                August 2018
                August 2018
                : 200
                : 2
                : 448-456
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centro Chirurgico Toscano, Arezzo, Italy
                [2 ]Clinic and Policlinic for Urology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Urology, Klinikum Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany
                [4 ]Urology Unit, Ospedale Santa Maria alla Gruccia, Montevarchi, Italy
                [5 ]Department of Urology, Zeisigwald Clinics Bethanien, Chemnitz, Germany
                [6 ]Department of Urology, Diakonissen Hospital Dessau, Dessau, Germany
                [7 ]Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Clinical and Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
                Article
                10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.3102
                29601924
                8910d64d-5ae6-4f34-901d-4bb202dc550d
                © 2018

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article