Pediatric UrologyBuccal Mucosa Tube Graft for Failed Hypospadias Repair: Worth it or Not?
Section snippets
Patient Selection
We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all 69 consecutive patients undergoing BMTG for repair of hypospadias at our institution between January 2005 and October 2016. Excluding 18 patients, for whom urethroplasty was undertaken as initial hypospadias repair, and 3 who were lost to follow-up, a total of 48 patients who underwent surgery for correction of failed hypospadias repair and were followed for a minimum of 12 months qualified for study. We recorded the duration of follow-up for
RESULTS
Mean age at the time of surgery was 8.96 ± 7.32 years, and the median follow-up period was 65.50 months (range: 31-162 months) (Table 1). All patients had undergone a variety of primary hypospadias corrections and related surgeries due to ensuing complications (range, 1-5 procedures; average, 1.94 ± 1.19). Having faced multiple interventions years before seeking our care, some patients had lost count and were unable to indicate with certainty the original primary meatal locations. Initial
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the largest study using BMTG to treat hypospadias after failed repairs. Herein, we determined the success rate of this approach and critically analyzed related complications. Although there have been several reports to date of similar studies, they have been hampered by the heterogeneity of their patient populations and surgical techniques.3, 4, 5, 6 To better understand postoperative patient courses in this setting, we analyzed outcomes and complications over time,
CONCLUSION
Although BMTG after failed hypospadias repair seems prone to complications (mainly strictures), postoperative urethral strictures after BMTG were not usually lengthy and were treatable in many cases by endoscopic surgery. Nevertheless, BMTG in treatment of failed hypospadias should be applied only to highly selected patients, given that postoperative complications are more common than staged approach, even in patients with good prognostic factors.
Authors Contribution
Sang Woon Kim: Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. Yong Seung Lee: Data collection or management, Data analysis. Sang Won Han: Project development, Manuscript writing/editing.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no competing interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent
For this type of study, informed consent is not required.
Supplementary Figure 1. Buccal mucosa tube graft in treatment of failed hypospadias; (A) penile appearance 6 months after skin flap and urethral division; (B) postoperative shape after buccal mucosa tube graft showing catheter and minimal incision
Reference (22)
- et al.
The oral mucosa graft: a systematic review
J Urol
(2007) - et al.
Buccal mucosal grafts: Lessons learned from an 8-year experience
J Urol
(2001) - et al.
Critical outcome analysis of staged buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty for prior failed hypospadias repair in children
J Urol
(2011) - et al.
Retrospective descriptive analysis of 1,176 patients with failed hypospadias repair
J Urol
(2010) - et al.
Buccal Mucosal Urethral Replacement
J Urol
(1995) - et al.
Morbidity associated with oral mucosa harvest for urological reconstruction: An overview
J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
(2008) - et al.
Histological and immunohistochemical changes in the rat oral mucosa used as an autologous urethral graft
J Pediatr Surg
(2013) - et al.
The buccal mucosal graft for urethral reconstruction - a preliminary-report
J Urol
(1992) - et al.
Initial experience with staged buccal graft (Bracka) hypospadias reoperations
J Urol
(2004) - et al.
The mechanism of skin graft contraction: An update on current research and potential future therapies
Burns
(2008)
Cited by (1)
Financial disclosures: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.