Morbidity of Closure versus Non-Closure of Oral Mucosal Graft Harvest Site during Urethroplasty
Asian Journal of Research and Reports in Urology, Volume 5, Issue 4,
Page 13-22
Abstract
Background: Technique of harvesting oral mucosa is straightforward and its efficacy in urethroplasty is beyond question. But the optimal method for managing the intraoral defect is yet to be determined. Regarding closure versus non-closure of the oral mucosal graft harvest site, there are various published articles worldwide. In Bangladesh, there are limited study regarding the issue though now a day’s buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty has become one of the routine operation of the urologist of Bangladesh.
Objective: The objective of the study is to determine the effect of closure versus non-closure of the oral mucosal graft harvest site in men undergoing urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease. In this hospital based Quasi experimental study, a total of 37 patients were allocated into two groups by purposive sampling technique where the donor site was either closed or left open. Baseline demographic and clinical data were recorded. Postoperatively, questionnaires assessing pain, resumption of diet, perioral sensation, mouth opening, salivary disturbance and facial deformity were completed at postoperative Day 1, 5 at 3 and 6 months. All the collected data were compiled. Further Statistical analyses of the results were obtained by using Microsoft Xcel, 2010 and web based computer software -Graph Pad Software, 2017. The baseline characteristics like age, stricture length and site of graft harvesting of the study subjects were potentially comparable. The early postoperative pain scores demonstrated a trend favoring the non-closure group until day 5. Regarding difficulty in mouth opening, the result also favored the non-closure group (44.44%, 11.11% vs 78.94%, 63.15%, p<0.05 in Day1 and Day5) as did the appearance of postoperative facial deformity (5.56%, 0% vs 21.05%, 15.78%, p<0.05 in Day1 and Day5). Non-closure resulted in early return to regular diet (88.88% vs 78.94% in Day1 and 94.44% vs 73.68% in Day5). More perioral numbness was in non-closure group. (61.11% vs 52.63% in Day1 and 50.00% vs 42.10% in Day5), but these differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Dry mouth was higher in closure group than non-closure group patients (day 1 21% vs 16%, day 5 15.78% vs 11%, 3 months 10% vs 5%). The difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, at 6 months, no difference was found in the above mentioned parameters between the two groups. The results of the present study suggest that closure of the oral mucosa graft harvest site may lead to a significantly increased early postoperative pain perception, difficulty in mouth opening and facial deformity although long term results are the same. So keeping the donor area unsutured may be a better option of dealing the graft harvest site in terms of early postoperative recovery.
- Urethral strictures
- urethroplasty
- oral mucosal graft
How to Cite
References
Humby G. A one-stage operation for hypospadias. Br J Surg. 1941;29:84-7.
Alwaal A, Anthony E, Harris CR, McAninch JW, Breyer BN. Healing of donar site buccal mucosa urethroplasty. J Urology. 2015;86(3):9-10.
Al Jamal GA, Hazza'a AM, Rawashdeh MA. Prevalence of dental anomalies in a population of cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(4):413-20.
DOI: 10.1597/08-275.1. PMID: 20590463.
Akyuz M, Gunes M, koca O, Sertkaya, Z, kanberoglu H, Karaman MI. Evalution of intraoral complications of buccal mucosa graft in augmentation urethroplasty. Turkish J Urol. 2014;40(3):156-160.
Markiewicz MR, Lukose MA, Margarone JE, Barbagli G, Miller KS, Chuang SK. The oral mucosa graft: A systematic review. J Urol. 2007;178: 387-94.
Muruganandam K, Dubey D, Gulia AK. Closure versus nonclosure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site: a prospective randomized study on postoperative morbidity. Indian J Urol. 2009;25:72-75.
Wood DN, Allen SE, Andrich, DE, Greenwell TJ, Mundy AR, The Morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative pain. J Urol. 2004;72:580-3.
Dublin N, Stewart LH. Oral complications after buccalmuscosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int. 2004;94:867-9.
Joseph S, Deepak D, Shet V. To close or not to close? Donor site morbidity after buccal mucosal graft harvesting. WJPPS. 2017;6:1373-1383.
Bergmeier LA. Oral mucosa in health and disease. 1st ed. London, United Kingdom; Springer International Publishing; 2018:78.
Barbagli G, Fossati N, Sansalone, Larcher A, Romano G, Dell’ Acqa V, Guazzoni G, Lazzeri M. Prediction of early and late complications after oral mucosal graft harvesting: Multivariable analysis from a cohort of 553 consecutive patients. JUrol. 2014;191,688-693.
Barbagli G, Lazzeri M, Re Rourke, et al. Effect of wound closureon buccalmucosal graft harvest sitemorbidity: Results of a randomizedprospective trial (urology 2012;79:443-448). Urol. 2012;80:741.
Rourke K, McKinny S, St. Martin BA. Effect of wound closureon buccalmucosal graft harvest sitemorbidity: Results of a randomizedprospective trial. UROLOGY. 2012;79:443-448.
Rourke CP, Sanderson BJ. Introduction to piecewise-linear topology. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
Muruganandam K, Deepak Dubey, Anil Kumar Gulia, Anil Mandhani, Aneesh Srivastava, Rakesh Kapoor, Anant Kumar. Closure versus nonclosure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site: Department of urology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow, India; 2009.
Barbagli G, Vallasciani S, Romano G, Fabbri F, Guazzoni G. Lazzeri M. Morbidity of oral mucosa graft harvesting from a single cheek. European Urology. 2010; 58:33-41.
Soave A, Dahlem R, Pinnschmidt HO, Rink M, Langetepe J, Engel O, et al. Substitution urethroplasty with closure versus nonclosure of the buccal mucosa graft harvest site: A randomized controlled trial with a detailed analysis of oral pain and morbidity. J. EURURO. 2017;7633: 1-13.
Mungadi IA, Ugboko VI. Oral mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction. Annals of African Medicine. 2009;8:203-9.
Tolstunov L, Pogrel A, Mc Aninch JW. Intraoral morbidity following free buccal mucosal greft harvesting for urethroplasty. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Patho Oral Radiol. 1997;84:480-2.
Kamp S, Knoll T, Osman M, Hδcker A, Miche lMS, Alken P, Donor-site morbidity in buccal mucosa urethroplasty: Lower lip or inner cheek? BJU Int. 2005;96:619-
Kumar S, Bansal P, Vijoy MK, Dutta A, Tiwari P, Sharma PK, et al. Buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty in long segment anterior urethral stricture – Is it gold standard. SJKDT. 2013;24(1):115-120.
-
Abstract View: 109 times
PDF Download: 33 times
