The comparative study of lingual mucosal graft combined with buccal mucosal graft and ADM urethroplasty for failed hypospadias repair
李承勇,撒应龙,郝川,金重睿,孙科,曹伟,郭强
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20200428-00335
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To compare the outcomes of combined lingual mucosal graft with buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty and combined lingual mucosal graft with ADM (acellular dermal matrix) urethroplasty for the treatment of repair failed hypospadias.Methods:From February 2017 to February 2019, 26 patients with failed hypospadias repairs were treated with combined lingual mucosal graft with buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (14 cases in Group A), and combined lingual mucosal graft with ADM urethroplasty (12 cases in Group B). The mean age of Group A was (29.5±1.2) years (range 18.0-41.0 years), and (26.5±0.8) years (range 20.0-38.0 years) in Group B. The previous operation times was mean (3.6±0.7)(range 2-5 times) and (4.6±0.8)(range 3-5 times) in Group A and Group B respectively. Operation method: All patients were nasally intubated, the remaining curvature was corrected, the fibrous tissue or scar was removed, and the defected urethra was measured. In Group A, the lingual mucosa was spread and fixed to the corpora cavernosa over the midline as the urethral plate, the buccal mucosa was covered the lingual mucosa as ventral urethra, both the mucosa lateral edges was sutured. In Group B, the lingual mucosa was harvested and fixed to the corpora cavernosa the same as in Group A, the ADM was made appropriate length and width, covered and sutured with the lingual mucosa. The lingual mucosa was harvested mean (5.0±0.2)cm(range 4-6cm)long, mean (1.2±0.2)cm (range 1.0-1.5cm)wide and mean (5.0±0.2)cm(range 5-6cm)long, mean (1.2±0.2)cm (range 1.0-1.5cm)wide in Group A and Group B respectively( P<0.05). In Group A, the buccal mucosa was harvested mean (4.1±0.2)cm(range 3.5-5.5cm)long, mean (1.2±0.2)cm wide. Criteria for successful repair of hypospadias were set as: ①The appearance of the penis is nearly normal; ②The penis curvature was corrected; ③Urethra orifice in normal position; ④Urine flow line is normal. The outcomes of the two groups were analyzed and compared, statistical analysis was done using SPSS 18.0 software. Results:The mean follow-up time was (16.3±1.6)(8-24) months. The age, number of preoperative surgeries, number of previous oral mucous membranes, and length of urethral defects were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in A and B( P>0.05). The length of oral mucosa was harvested during the operation between group A and Group B were statistically significant differences( P<0.05). The incidence of oral complications in group A and B: Oral pain 7/14, 1/12; The feeling of tension in mouth 8/14, 1/12; The numbness in the oral 8/14, 1/12, A and Group B were statistically significant differences( P<0.05). The incidence of urethral complications in group A and Group B: the urethra fistula 1/14, 4/12; the urethral stricture 2/14, 6/12, there were statistically significant differences between the two groups ( P<0.05). Penile curvature 2/14, 1/12, ( P>0.05). The success rate was 12/14 and 5/12 in Group A and B respectively, with statistical difference( P<0.05). Conclusions:Combined lingual mucosal graft with buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty could be a good choice for repeated failed hypospadias repairs. Combined lingual mucosal graft with ADM urethroplasty has many complications and less success, should be performed in caution.