Original Article
Use of rectal mucosal grafts in substitution urethroplasty: an early series
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the feasibility of use of rectal mucosal grafts for augmentation urethroplasty.
Methods: A series of five patients who underwent rectal mucosal graft urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease were identified. Descriptive statistics were used to describe these patients. Primary endpoints were recurrence of stricture and perioperative morbidity.
Results: Five patients underwent rectal mucosal graft augmentation urethroplasty. Four had a history of prior buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty and one had a history of head and neck cancer. Rectal mucosa was noted to be thinner and required more tailoring than buccal mucosa. All patients had patent urethras at time of postoperative retrograde urethrogram. A small diverticulum was noted in one patient with no further sequelae. No complications from rectal mucosal graft harvest were noted. All patients with prior buccal grafting subjectively preferred the rectal graft due to fewer side effects. Subjectively, patients with prior buccal grafts preferred the post-operative recovery following rectal mucosal graft urethroplasty.
Conclusions: Rectal mucosal graft augmentation urethroplasty is a safe alternative in patients with contraindications to buccal grafting with limited morbidity.
Methods: A series of five patients who underwent rectal mucosal graft urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease were identified. Descriptive statistics were used to describe these patients. Primary endpoints were recurrence of stricture and perioperative morbidity.
Results: Five patients underwent rectal mucosal graft augmentation urethroplasty. Four had a history of prior buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty and one had a history of head and neck cancer. Rectal mucosa was noted to be thinner and required more tailoring than buccal mucosa. All patients had patent urethras at time of postoperative retrograde urethrogram. A small diverticulum was noted in one patient with no further sequelae. No complications from rectal mucosal graft harvest were noted. All patients with prior buccal grafting subjectively preferred the rectal graft due to fewer side effects. Subjectively, patients with prior buccal grafts preferred the post-operative recovery following rectal mucosal graft urethroplasty.
Conclusions: Rectal mucosal graft augmentation urethroplasty is a safe alternative in patients with contraindications to buccal grafting with limited morbidity.
