Donor site outcome after oral mucosa harvest for urethroplasty: a prospective study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20253139Keywords:
Stricture, Hypospadias, Buccal mucosal graft, Urethroplasty, Donor site morbidityAbstract
Background: Congenital or acquired defects of the male urethra may be repaired utilizing varied substitute materials, such as genital or extragenital skin and oral mucosa (OM). Currently, the application of OM has emerged as the most dependable and favoured alternative to urethral reconstructive surgery. This study aimed to examine oral morbidity and patient satisfaction within a uniform cohort of patients who underwent oral mucosa harvesting with a standardised procedure.
Methods: The study was carried out in the Department of urology, Narayana medical college and hospital, Nellore between January 2023 to March 2025. 38 cases were included in the study, at the time of admission, detailed history, clinical examination and necessary radiological examination were done.
Results: The results showed that 2 (5%) of 38 patients had early oozing. 3 cases (7%) had accidental lip and cheek bites in whom harvest site was not closed. The graft site was sutured in 26 patients (68.42%). In 8 patients (21.05%) the graft site was left open. At one month only 1 patient (2.63%) was unable to whistle and he was able to do so by 3 months. 2 patients (5.26%) had parotid swelling during first week of surgery which subsided at 2 weeks with conservative treatment. 24 patients (63.15%) of 38 had restricted mouth opening only during first week.
Conclusions: Restricted mouth opening and Pain are the only long-term complications in our study which were not bother-some. Pain appears to be worse after suturing donor site. Bilateral buccal mucosal graft harvesting has no extra problems as compared to unilateral harvesting. Hence in case of long urethral stricture, two independent Strips are preferable than single strip involving lip.
Metrics
References
El-Kasaby AW, Fath-Alla M, Noweir AM, El-Halaby MR, Zakaria W, El-Beialy MH. The use of buccal mucosa patch graft in the management of anterior urethral strictures. J Urol. 1993;149:276-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36054-8
Morey AF, McAninch JW. When and how to use buccal mucosal grafts in adult bulbar urethroplasty. Urology. 1996;48:194-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00154-9
Jayanthi V, Probert CS, Sher KS, Mayberry JF. Oral submucosal fibrosis--a preventable disease. Gut. 1992;33(1):4-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.33.1.4
Sinha RJ, Singh V, Sankhwar SN, Dalela D. Donor site morbidity in oral mucosa graft urethroplasty: implications of tobacco consumption. BMC Urol. 2009;9:15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-9-15
Wood DN, Allen SE, Andrich DE, Greenwell TJ, Mundy AR. The morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and effect of nonclosure of graft harvest site on postoperative pain. J Urol. 2004;172:580-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132846.01144.9f
Barbagli G, De Stefani S. Reconstruction of the bulbar urethra using dorsal onlay buccal mucosa grafts: new concepts and surgical tricks. Indian J Urol. 2006;22:113-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.26563
Pansadoro V, Emiliozzi P, Gaffi M. Buccal mucosa urethroplasty in the treatment of bulbar urethral strictures. Urology. 2003;61:1008-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02585-2
Stefan K, Thomas K, Mahmoud O, Axel H, Maurice SM, Peter A. Donor site morbidity in buccal mucosal urethroplasty: lower lip or inner cheek. BJU Int. 2005;96:619-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05695.x
Dublin N, Stewart L. An audit of oral complications after buccal/lip mucosal harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int. 2003;91:22-4.
Simonato A, Gregori A, Lissiani A. The tongue as an alternative donor site for graft urethroplasty: a pilot study. J Urol. 2006;175(2):589-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00166-7
Mungadi IA, Ugochukwu AI. Comparison of closure versus non-closure of the intraoral buccal mucosa graft site in urethroplasties: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2022;20(3):186-94.
Wang A, McCammon KA, Cheng Z, Magera JS. Lingual versus buccal mucosal graft for augmentation urethroplasty: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes and patient-reported donor site morbidity. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53(5):825-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02720-7
Chauhan S, Yadav SS, Tomar V. Outcome of buccal mucosa and lingual mucosa graft urethroplasty in the management of urethral strictures: A comparative study. Urol Ann. 2016;8(1):7-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.165715
Desai D, Joshi S, Ravichandran K, Flynn H, De Wachter S, De Win G. Donor site morbidity and impact on oral health following buccal mucosal graft harvesting for urethroplasty: a prospective study. World J Urol. 2025;43(1):531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05898-6
Farahzadi S, Bettendorf J, Struck JP, et al. New measurement method for long-term oral complications following oral mucosal graft harvesting for urethroplasty. Int J Impot Res. 2025;37(5):234-41.
Foreman J, Peterson A, Krughoff K. Buccal mucosa for use in urethral reconstruction: evolution of use over the last 30 years. Front Urol. 2023;3:1138707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fruro.2023.1138707
Bozkurt İH, Yalçınkaya F, Sertçelik MN, Zengin K. Comparison of uni-and bilateral buccal mucosa harvesting in terms of oral morbidity. Cent European J Urol. 2013;66(2):192-7.
Akyüz M, Güneş A, Işıkay L. Evaluation of intraoral complications of buccal mucosa grafts harvested from one cheek and used in augmentation urethroplasty. Turk J Urol. 2014;40(2):89-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2014.46343
Frankiewicz M, Pottek T, Isbarn H. Oral care pathways after oral mucosal graft harvesting. Actas Urol Esp. 2024;48(8):576-84.
Sharma NK, Dogra PN, Nayak B. A prospective randomized study comparing lingual mucosal graft with buccal mucosal graft for substitution urethroplasty. BJU Int. 2017;120(2):278-85.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
