Technique of harvesting oral mucosa for urethral reconstruction. Evaluation of postoperative complications and patient satisfaction

Česká verzia

Authors: G. Barbagli; G. Romano; M. Lazzeri
Authors place of work: IFCA, via del Pergolino 4/6, 50139 Florence ; Department of Urology
Published in the journal: Urol List 2011; 9(1): 7-10

Summary

The oral mucosa (OM) is a popular substitute for urethroplasty. The aim of this study was to describe the surgical technique and to investigate postoperative oral morbidity and patient satisfaction in a homogeneous group of patients of 350 patients, who underwent OM harvesting from a single check. The graft was harvested in an ovoid shape with closure of the wound. Standard graft size was 4 cm in length and 2.5 cm in width. Postoperative complications and patient satisfaction were investigated using a self-administered, non-validated semi-quantitative (0 = absence of complications or symptoms; 3 = the worst complication or symptom) questionnaire. 6 questions were used to investigate early complications and 13 questions to investigate late complications and patient satisfaction. Early complications: bleeding occurred in 15 (4.3%) patients. The majority of patients (85.2%) showed no pain and only 3.7% required use of anti-inflammatory drugs. The majority of patients (65.8%) showed slight or moderate swelling. Late complications: most of patients (73.4%) reported oral numbness for one week, 22.9% for one month and 3.77% for three months. The numbness due to scar was absent or slight in most of patients. Changes in oral sensitivity occurred in 2.3% pts. No difficulties opening mouth and smiling was found in 98.3% and 99.7% of patients, respectively. Slight or moderate dry mouth was found in 97.1% of patients. In response to the question: "Would you undergo oral mucosa graft harvesting using this technique again?" 343 pts (98%) replied yes and 7 patients (2%) replied no. In conclusion, the harvesting of an OM ovoid graft from a cheek with closure of the wound is a safe procedure with a high patient satisfaction rate.

Key words:
oral mucosa, urethroplasty, urethral stricture, cheek, quality of life, postoperative complications

Zdroje

1. Markiewicz MR, Lukose MA, Margarone JE et al. The oral mucosa graft: a systematic review. J Urol 2007; 178(2): 387–394.

2. Markiewicz MR, Margarone JE, Barbagli G et al. Oral mucosa harvest: an overview of anatomic and biologic considerations. EAU-EBU UPDATE SERIES (5) 2007; 5: 179–187.

3. Simonato A, Gregori A, Ambruosi C et al. Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty for anterior urethral reconstruction. Eur Urol 2008; 54(1): 79–87.

4. Wood DN, Allen SE, Andrich DE et al. The morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative pain. J Urol 2004; 172(2): 580–583.

5. Dublin N, Stewart LH. Oral complications after buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int 2004; 94(6): 867–869.

6. Jang TL, Erickson B, Medendorp A et al. Comparison of donor site intraoral morbidity after mucosal graft harvesting for urethral reconstruction. Urology 2005; 66(4): 716–720.

7. Markiewicz MR, DeSantis JL, Margarone JE et al. Morbidity associated with oral mucosa harvest for urological reconstruction: an overview. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66(4): 739–744.

8. Castagnetti M, Ghirardo V, Capizzi A et al. Donor site outcome after oral mucosa harvest for urethroplasty in children and adults. J Urol 2008; 180(6): 2624–2628.

9. Kamp S, Knoll T, Osman M et al. Donor site morbidity in buccal mucosa urethroplasty: lower lip or inner cheek? BJU Int 2005; 96(4): 619–623.

10. Martin BA, Rouke K, Edmonton AB. Closure vs non-closure of buccal mucosa graft harvest site:

a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 2009; 181: 15(abstract 39).

11. Barbagli G, Vallasciani S, Romano G et al. Morbidity of oral mucosa graft Harvesting from a single cheek. Eur Urol 2010; 58(1): 33–41.