STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Research and Reviews : Journal of Surgery

Outcome of Circumferential Penile Skin versus Dorsal on Lay Buccal Mucosal Urethroplasty for Long Anterior Urethral Strictures: A Prospective Single Centre Experience with Five Years Follow-up

  1. Syed Sajjad Nazir
  2. Syed Mohammed Tazeem Shah
  3. Muneer Khan
  4. Baldev Singh Wazir
  5. Shaukat A Geelani
  6. Basharat Saleem
  7. Mohammed Yaseen Wani

Abstract

Buccal mucosa has become the most popular substitute in the management of urethral strictures. Prior to it, penile skin was the preferred tissue for transfer. In order to see which one is better, we study the outcome of penile versus buccal mucosa for long anterior urethral strictures. A total of 76 patients with long anterior urethral strictures of more than 5 cm were randomly divided into two groups in the age group of 20–45 years. Group A was subjected to circumferential penile skin urethroplasty and Group B to dorsal onlay buccal mucosal urethroplasty. Results were assessed by univariate analysis of various patient characteristics, preoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction and cystoscopic, retrograde urethrography and uroflowmetry. The median intraoperative stricture length was 6.5 cm with median operating time of 100 minutes (90–145 min) and blood loss of 100 ml. All patients had five years of follow-up. Year wise success rate was 92%, 89%, 84%, 80% and 75% in group A while group B had 95%, 92%, 90% 88% and 84%. Buccal mucosal urethroplasty had slightly better 5 year overall success rate than circumferential penile skin irrespective of age, aetiology and stricture length. Keywords: Penile skin, buccal mucosa, stricture and urethroplastyCite this ArticleSyed SN, Muneer K, Showket AG et al. Outcome of Circumferential Penile Skin versus Dorsal On Lay Buccal Mucosal Urethroplasty for Long Anterior Urethral Strictures: A Prospective Single Centre Experience with Five Years Follow-Up. Research and Reviews: Journal of Surgery. 2016; 5(1): 18–23p.
Support