Barbagli Guido, Palminteri Enzo, Guazzoni Giorgio, Montorsi Francesco, Turini Damiano, Lazzeri Massimo
Center for Urethral and Genitalia Reconstructive Surgery, Arezzo, Italy.
J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):955-7; discussion 957-8. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169422.46721.d7.
The use of buccal mucosa graft onlay urethroplasty represents the most widespread method of bulbar urethral stricture repair. The graft may be placed on the ventral or dorsal urethral surface according to surgeon experience and preference. We investigated whether the results are affected by the surgical technique by comparing the outcome of 3 types of bulbar urethroplasty using buccal mucosa graft.
We repaired 50 bulbar urethral strictures with buccal mucosa grafts from 1997 to 2002. Mean patient age was 42 years. The etiology of stricture was ischemia in 12 cases, trauma in 6, instrumentation in 4 and unknown in 28. Patients with lichen sclerosus, failed hypospadias or urethroplasty and stricture extending into the penile urethra were not included. A total of 47 patients (94%) had undergone previous urethrotomy or dilation. The buccal mucosa graft was always harvested from the cheek using a 2 team approach. Mean graft length was 4.2 cm. The graft was placed on the ventral, dorsal and lateral bulbar urethral surface in 17, 27 and 6 cases, respectively. Clinical outcome was considered a success or failure at the time that any postoperative procedure was needed, including dilation. Mean followup was 42 months (range 12 to 76).
Of 50 cases 42 (84%) were successful and 8 (16%) failed. The 17 ventral grafts provided success in 14 cases (83%) and failure in 3 (17%). The 27 dorsal grafts provided success in 23 cases (85%) and failure in 4 (15%). The 6 lateral grafts provided success in 5 cases (83%) and failure in 1 (17%). No surgical complications were observed. Failures involved the anastomotic site (distal in 2 and proximal in 3) and the whole grafted area in 3 cases. They were treated with urethrotomy in 5 cases and 2-stage urethroplasty in 3.
In our experience the placement of buccal mucosa grafts into the ventral, dorsal or lateral surface of the bulbar urethra showed the same success rates (83% to 85%) and the outcome was not affected by the surgical technique. Moreover, stricture recurrence was uniformly distributed in all patients.
颊黏膜移植覆盖尿道成形术是治疗球部尿道狭窄最常用的方法。根据术者经验和偏好,移植片可置于尿道腹侧或背侧。我们通过比较3种使用颊黏膜移植的球部尿道成形术的结果,研究手术技术是否会影响疗效。
1997年至2002年,我们用颊黏膜移植修复了50例球部尿道狭窄。患者平均年龄42岁。狭窄病因:缺血12例,创伤6例,医源性损伤4例,病因不明28例。排除患有硬化性苔藓、尿道下裂修复失败或尿道成形术失败以及狭窄延伸至阴茎尿道的患者。共有47例患者(94%)曾接受过尿道切开术或尿道扩张术。颊黏膜移植片均采用双组手术法从颊部获取。移植片平均长度为4.2 cm。移植片分别置于球部尿道腹侧、背侧和外侧17例、27例和6例。当需要任何术后治疗(包括尿道扩张)时,临床结果判定为成功或失败。平均随访42个月(范围12至76个月)。
50例患者中,42例(84%)成功,8例(16%)失败。17例腹侧移植片,14例(83%)成功,3例(17%)失败。27例背侧移植片,23例(85%)成功,4例(15%)失败。6例外侧移植片,5例(83%)成功,1例(17%)失败。未观察到手术并发症。失败病例包括吻合口部位(远端2例,近端3例)和整个移植区域3例。5例患者接受了尿道切开术治疗,3例接受了二期尿道成形术治疗。
根据我们的经验,将颊黏膜移植片置于球部尿道腹侧、背侧或外侧的成功率相同(83%至85%),手术技术不影响治疗结果。此外,狭窄复发在所有患者中分布均匀。