Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 337   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 36-41

Outcome of buccal mucosa and lingual mucosa graft urethroplasty in the management of urethral strictures: A comparative study

Department of Urology, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Sharad Chauhan
304, Park Exotica Apartments, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.165715

PMID: 26834399

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the outcome of buccal and lingual mucosa graft (LMG) augmentation urethroplasty along with donor sites morbidities in anterior urethra stricture. Subjects and Methods: From September 2010 to January 2014, 125 patients underwent single stage augmentation urethroplasty. They were randomly divided into two groups to receive either buccal mucosa graft (BMG) or LMG. The patients were prospectively followed for complications and outcome. Results: Baseline characteristics such as mean age, etiology, stricture length, and location were comparable in both groups. Overall success rate for Group 1 and Group 2 were 69.2% and 80%, respectively. Mean follow-up periods were 28.2 and 25 months in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Conclusions: LMG provides the better outcome with fewer immediate and delayed complications as compared to BMG. The length of stricture and width of graft were main factors affecting the outcome.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded398    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal