J W Brock1. 1. Division of Pediatric Urology, Children's Hospital of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The search for an adequate tissue for reconstruction of the urethra in those patients with a paucity of local skin continues. Over the past 18 months, the use of buccal mucosa as a substitution for urethra was evaluated. METHODS: Six patients who had complex hypospadias had buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction. All patients had had previous surgery for repair of chordee or significant complications from previous surgery with a result of lack of penile skin. Patients were operated on and followed for 8 to 17 months. RESULTS: Buccal mucosa was used as a rolled tube in 4 patients, an onlay graft in 1, and a folded tube in 1. A urethrocutaneous fistula that was repaired 6 months after the buccal surgery was the only complication. CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of its tissue characteristics, ease of handling, and ease of harvest, buccal mucosa is an excellent tissue for urethral reconstruction.
OBJECTIVES: The search for an adequate tissue for reconstruction of the urethra in those patients with a paucity of local skin continues. Over the past 18 months, the use of buccal mucosa as a substitution for urethra was evaluated. METHODS: Six patients who had complex hypospadias had buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction. All patients had had previous surgery for repair of chordee or significant complications from previous surgery with a result of lack of penile skin. Patients were operated on and followed for 8 to 17 months. RESULTS: Buccal mucosa was used as a rolled tube in 4 patients, an onlay graft in 1, and a folded tube in 1. A urethrocutaneous fistula that was repaired 6 months after the buccal surgery was the only complication. CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of its tissue characteristics, ease of handling, and ease of harvest, buccal mucosa is an excellent tissue for urethral reconstruction.
Authors: Emilie K Johnson; Spencer I Kozinn; Kathryn L Johnson; Sohee Kim; David A Diamond; Alan B Retik Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.264