Literature DB >> 22889835

Urethral reconstruction using buccal mucosa or penile skin grafts: systematic review and meta-analysis.

N Lumen1, W Oosterlinck, P Hoebeke.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Different types of grafts have been described in urethral reconstruction (UR), with penile skin graft (PSG) and buccal mucosa graft (BMG) as the most frequently used ones. It still remains unclear whether one graft is superior in terms of success when compared to the other.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed searching the MEDLINE database with the following search strategy: 'urethroplasty' AND 'penile skin'/ 'urethroplasty' AND 'buccal mucosa'. 266 and 144 records were retrieved for urethroplasty with PSG and BMG, respectively. These records were reviewed to identify papers where PSG and BMG were used in UR and where individualized data on success were available within the same series.
RESULTS: 18 papers were found eligible for further analysis. In total, 428 and 483 patients were respectively treated with PSG or BMG. If available, follow-up duration was 64.1 versus 42.1 months (p < 0.0001) and stricture length 6.2 versus 4.6 cm (p < 0.0001) for PSG and BMG, respectively. Success of UR with PSG was 81.8 versus 85.9% with BMG (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Success of UR using BMG is significantly better compared to PSG. Results might be seriously biased by a longer follow-up duration and stricture length for PSG compared to BMG.
Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22889835     DOI: 10.1159/000341138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Int        ISSN: 0042-1138            Impact factor:   2.089


  33 in total

1.  Developing improved tissue-engineered buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction.

Authors:  Abdulmuttalip Simsek; Anthony J Bullock; Sabi Roman; Chirstoper R Chapple; Sheila Macneil
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  A novel surgery: robotic transanal rectal mucosal harvest.

Authors:  K N Howard; L C Zhao; A C Weinberg; M Granieri; M A Bernstein; A L Grucela
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  [Anatomy and anatomical foundations of urethral surgery].

Authors:  C Gozzi; O Dalpiaz
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  [Prepuce as free transplant].

Authors:  S Tritschler; C Füllhase; C Stief; A Roosen
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Robotic transanal minimally invasive rectal mucosa harvest.

Authors:  Katherine N Howard; Lee C Zhao; Aaron C Weinberg; Michael Granieri; Mitchell A Bernstein; Alexis L Grucela
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Refractory Urethral Stricture Management: Indications for Alternative Grafts and Flaps.

Authors:  Alison C Levy; Alex J Vanni
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Buccal mucosa urethroplasty: a 10-year retrospective review of maxillofacial and urological outcomes.

Authors:  J E O'Connell; I M Cullen; C Murphy; H Flood; G J Kearns
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 8.  Male urethral strictures and their management.

Authors:  Lindsay A Hampson; Jack W McAninch; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  CT virtual cystourethroscopy for complex urethral strictures: an investigative, descriptive study.

Authors:  Chao Feng; Yu-Lan Shen; Yue-Min Xu; Qiang Fu; Ying-Long Sa; Hong Xie; Xiang-Guo Lv
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 10.  Regenerative and engineered options for urethroplasty.

Authors:  Filippo Pederzoli; Gregory Joice; Andrea Salonia; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Nikolai A Sopko
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.