From the 2nd Department, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing China.
Ann Plast Surg. 2022 Aug 1;89(2):201-206. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003100.
Neophallic urethroplasty remains a significant challenge in penile reconstruction. Currently, there is no ideal recognized method. Through this article, we aimed to share our experiences of urethral reconstruction in the pedicled anterolateral thigh flap penile reconstruction using modified techniques and alternative flaps.
In this single-center study from 2010 to 2020, 49 patients underwent penile reconstruction with a pedicled anterolateral thigh flap; 17 patients had a micropenis, 3 had iatrogenic defects, and 29 had penile defects after trauma. Different urethroplasty methods, complications, and revision methods were separately described. The tube-in-tube technique was used in 6 cases; the superficial iliac circumflex artery perforator (SCIAP) flap and pudendal-thigh flap were used in 26 and 11 cases, respectively, and the pedicled scrotal flap was used in 6 cases. Revision urethroplasty due to postoperative necrosis (n = 3), stricture (n = 8), and fistula (n = 2) were performed in 13 cases.
The urethral complications (flap necrosis, urinary fistula, and stricture) were as follows: tube-in-tube, 66.7%; SCIAP flap, 46.2%; pudendal-thigh flap, 38.5%; and scrotal septum flap, 50%. After revision procedures, all patients could urinate while standing.
The characteristics and requirements of patients should be considered before designing a surgical plan. The tube-in-tube technique is the first choice for reconstructing the penis and urethra in a single stage for thinner patients. For other patients, a different flap can be used as a substitute for urethral reconstruction. The SCIAP, pudendal-thigh, and pedicled scrotal flaps can be used to reconstruct the urethra. The tubed SCIAP flap and pudendal-thigh flap are reliable, simple, and suitable for revision urethroplasty.
阴茎再造中的新尿道仍然是一个重大挑战。目前,尚无公认的理想方法。通过本文,我们旨在分享使用改良技术和替代皮瓣在带蒂股前外侧皮瓣阴茎再造中进行尿道重建的经验。
在 2010 年至 2020 年期间,这项单中心研究中,49 例患者接受了带蒂股前外侧皮瓣阴茎再造术;17 例患者存在小阴茎,3 例患者存在医源性缺损,29 例患者存在创伤后阴茎缺损。分别描述了不同的尿道成形术方法、并发症和修复方法。6 例采用管中管技术;26 例采用旋髂浅动脉穿支(SCIAP)皮瓣,11 例采用阴部股前皮瓣,6 例采用带蒂阴囊皮瓣。由于术后坏死(n=3)、狭窄(n=8)和瘘(n=2)进行了 13 例修复性尿道成形术。
尿道并发症(皮瓣坏死、尿瘘和狭窄)如下:管中管,66.7%;SCIAP 皮瓣,46.2%;阴部股前皮瓣,38.5%;和阴囊隔瓣,50%。经过修复手术后,所有患者均能站立排尿。
在设计手术方案之前,应考虑患者的特点和要求。对于较薄的患者,管中管技术是一期重建阴茎和尿道的首选方法。对于其他患者,可以使用不同的皮瓣作为尿道重建的替代物。SCIAP、阴部股前和带蒂阴囊皮瓣可用于重建尿道。带管的 SCIAP 皮瓣和阴部股前皮瓣是可靠、简单且适合修复性尿道成形术的方法。