Closure versus Non-closure Buccal Mucosal Graft Site for Lowering Post-operative Morbidity in Patient with Urethral Stricture Underwent Urethroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Gampo Alam Irdam; Kindy Aulia

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.10650

Authors

Gampo Alam Irdam Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
Kindy Aulia Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.10650

Keywords:

Buccal mucosal graft, Closure, Non-closure, Oral morbidity, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Buccal mucosal graft (BMG) has been a widely known technique for anterior urethral reconstruction; however, the studies regarding its morbidity are still limited.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to compare postoperative morbidity outcome between closure versus non-closure BMG harvest site in patients with urethral stricture underwent urethroplasty.

METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies was conducted. Literature searching was done through electronic databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were men diagnosed with urethral stricture and underwent urethroplasty procedure. The participants were two groups of patients divided based on whether their BMG harvest site was closed or left open. No exclusion criteria applied to the types of participants. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3 software. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the study.

RESULTS: We analyzed five studies qualitatively and three studies quantitatively. There was no significant difference between the closure and non-closure BMG in pooled standard mean difference (SMD) on the oral pain in day-1 and month-6 post-operation. However, pain score in day-1 post-operation was slightly higher in the closure group (SMD 0.49, 95% CI –0.31, 1.30). The incidence of perioral numbness in day-1 post-operation was significantly higher in the closure group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04, 2.10, p < 0.05). The incidence of difficulty in opening mouth in day-1 post-operation also significantly higher in closure group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14, 1.91, p = 0.003). There was no significant morbidity difference between two groups reported in five studies included after 6 months post-operation.

CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between closure and non-closure of BMG in the post-operative pain morbidity. However, the incidence of the early perioral numbness and difficulty in mouth opening was significantly lower in non-closure group.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Muruganandam K, Dubey D, Gulia AK, Mandhani A, Srivastava A, Kapoor R, et al. Closure versus nonclosure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site: A prospective randomized study on post operative morbidity. Indian J Urol. 2009;25(1):72-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.45541 PMid:19468433 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.45541

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;172(2):580-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132846.01144.9f PMid:15247736 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132846.01144.9f

Rourke K, McKinny S, St Martin B. Effect of wound closure on buccal mucosal graft harvest site morbidity: Results of a randomized prospective trial. Urology. 2012;79(2):443-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.073 PMid:22119261 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.073

Wong E, Fernando A, Alhasso A, Stewart L. Does closure of the buccal mucosal graft bed matter? Results from a randomized control trial. Urology. 2014;84:1223-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.041 PMid:25194996 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.041

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. Eur Urol. 2017;73(6):910-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.014 PMid:29198583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.014

Tritschler S, Roosen A, Füllhase C, Stief CG, Rübben H. Urethral stricture: Etiology, investigation and treatments. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(3):220-6. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0220 PMid:23596502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0220

Kiechle JE, Chertack N, Gonzalez CM. Penile and urethral reconstructive surgery. Med Clin North Am. 2018;102(2):325-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2017.10.007 PMid:29406061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2017.10.007

Verla W, Oosterlinck W, Spinoit AF, Waterloos M. A comprehensive review emphasizing anatomy, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of male urethral stricture disease. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:9046430. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9046430 PMid:31139658 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9046430

Vanni AJ. New frontiers in urethral reconstruction: Injectables and alternative grafts. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4(1):84-91. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.01.09 PMid:26813260

Browne BM, Vanni AJ. Use of alternative techniques and grafts in urethroplasty. Urol Clin North Am. 2017;44(1):127-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2016.08.003 PMid:27908367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2016.08.003

Hölzle F, Mitchell DA, Rau A, Palisaar J, Loeffelbein DJ, Noldus J, et al. Assessment of the perfusion and morbidity of the buccal mucosal donor site for grafting of urethral strictures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40(1):47-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.12.004 PMid:21316256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.12.004

Wharton IP, Anderson PC. Buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty: Closure or nonclosure of the donor site? Eur Urol Suppl. 2010;9(2):144. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1569-9056(10)60386-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(10)60386-7