Treatment of Meatal Strictures by Dorsal Inlay Oral Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty: A Single-Center Experience.
meatal stenosis
meatal stricture
meatus
oral mucosa
urethra
urethral stricture
urethroplasty
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Sep 2021
22 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
10
07
2021
revised:
01
09
2021
accepted:
16
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
14
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To report on the use of oral mucosa graft urethroplasty for meatal strictures using the dorsal inlay technique. Patients who underwent a single-stage dorsal inlay oral mucosal graft urethroplasty between January 2000 and May 2021 were included in this study. A follow-up of a minimum of 12 months was necessary for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were stricture extension into the penile urethra, concomitant stricture at another location, flap urethroplasty for a meatal stricture, dorsal inlay urethroplasty with another type of graft, ventral onlay graft urethroplasty or staged urethroplasty. Recurrence was defined by the inability to pass a 14F metal sound through the reconstructed meatus irrespective of patients' complaints. Our study cohort included 40 patients. Buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty was used in 25 patients and 15 patients were treated with the aid of lingual mucosal graft (LMG). The median follow-up was 85 (IQR: 69-110) months. Seven (17.5%) patients suffered a stricture recurrence of which four (10%) needed re-intervention. The median 5-y recurrent free survival (RFS) for the entire cohort was 85 (±6)%. The median 5-y RFS was 96 (±4)% versus 65 (±13)% for respectively BMG and LMG ( Dorsal inlay oral mucosa graft urethroplasty is a safe and feasible technique for selected patients with meatal stenosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To report on the use of oral mucosa graft urethroplasty for meatal strictures using the dorsal inlay technique.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent a single-stage dorsal inlay oral mucosal graft urethroplasty between January 2000 and May 2021 were included in this study. A follow-up of a minimum of 12 months was necessary for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were stricture extension into the penile urethra, concomitant stricture at another location, flap urethroplasty for a meatal stricture, dorsal inlay urethroplasty with another type of graft, ventral onlay graft urethroplasty or staged urethroplasty. Recurrence was defined by the inability to pass a 14F metal sound through the reconstructed meatus irrespective of patients' complaints.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our study cohort included 40 patients. Buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty was used in 25 patients and 15 patients were treated with the aid of lingual mucosal graft (LMG). The median follow-up was 85 (IQR: 69-110) months. Seven (17.5%) patients suffered a stricture recurrence of which four (10%) needed re-intervention. The median 5-y recurrent free survival (RFS) for the entire cohort was 85 (±6)%. The median 5-y RFS was 96 (±4)% versus 65 (±13)% for respectively BMG and LMG (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Dorsal inlay oral mucosa graft urethroplasty is a safe and feasible technique for selected patients with meatal stenosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34640331
pii: jcm10194312
doi: 10.3390/jcm10194312
pmc: PMC8509526
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Br J Urol. 1968 Dec;40(6):717-9
pubmed: 4883846
J Urol. 2009 Sep;182(3):983-7
pubmed: 19616805
Br J Urol. 1998 May;81(5):735-7
pubmed: 9634051
Eur Urol. 2009 Jul;56(1):201-5
pubmed: 18555586
Urol Int. 2010;84(1):78-83
pubmed: 20173374
Eur Urol. 2008 Jun;53(6):1162-71
pubmed: 18609764
Int J Urol. 2014 Feb;21(2):185-8
pubmed: 23931150
BJU Int. 2000 Sep;86(4):459-65
pubmed: 10971272
Int J Urol. 2013 Dec;20(12):1199-203
pubmed: 23601029
Eur Urol. 2009 Apr;55(4):945-54
pubmed: 18691809
Z Urol. 1953;46(6):361-75
pubmed: 13103629
Adv Urol. 2013;2013:124836
pubmed: 24194754
Eur Urol. 2008 Jul;54(1):79-85
pubmed: 18261844
J Urol. 1996 Jan;155(1):123-6
pubmed: 7490808
J Pediatr Urol. 2018 Feb;14(1):66.e1-66.e5
pubmed: 29150196
Curr Opin Urol. 2012 Nov;22(6):478-83
pubmed: 22965317
World J Urol. 2020 Oct;38(10):2601-2607
pubmed: 31894369
Asian J Urol. 2019 Jul;6(3):230-241
pubmed: 31297314
Eur Urol. 2008 Aug;54(2):335-43
pubmed: 18384930
Urology. 2001 Nov;58(5):657-9
pubmed: 11711331
World J Urol. 2020 May;38(5):1283-1294
pubmed: 31321508
J Urol. 1963 Jul;90:67-71
pubmed: 14047855
Eur Urol. 2011 May;59(5):797-814
pubmed: 21353379
Int J Urol. 2017 Jul;24(7):493-503
pubmed: 28600871
Eur Urol. 2021 Aug;80(2):190-200
pubmed: 34059397
BJU Int. 2008 Sep;102(7):853-60
pubmed: 18485036
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):949-52
pubmed: 15311006
Curr Urol Rep. 2014 Aug;15(8):424
pubmed: 24935160
Int Urol Nephrol. 2016 Nov;48(11):1823-1829
pubmed: 27470030
BJU Int. 2011 Jan;107(1):6-26
pubmed: 21176068