Single-Surgeon Experience of 87 Buccal Mucosal Graft Harvests

Cohen, Sanford N.; Armenakas, Noel A.; Light, David; Fracchia, John A.; Glasberg, Scot B.

doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e318254b177

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…BMG is an attractive option due to the fact that it is a mucosal, non-hair bearing surface with fast uptake and vascularization after free grafting for urethral substitution [10,11]. BM tissue is abundant and accessible and the donor site morbidity is acceptably low [12,13], although contractures have been reported with lip donor sites [14], as well as with large cheek grafts [15]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction in children: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of buccal mucosa grafts (BMG) for urethral reconstruction has increased in popularity over the last several decades. Our aim was to describe our institutional experience with and outcomes after BMG urethroplasty.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of boys undergoing BMG urethral reconstruction. Preoperative and perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.ResultsTwenty-nine patients (median age 8.2 years) underwent BMG urethroplasty from 1995–2012. Of the 10 patients undergoing 1-stage repairs, 6 had tubularized grafts, the last of which was performed in 2000 due to an unacceptably high revision rate (100%). A 2-stage approach was elected for 19 patients (median follow-up 21.3 months). Complications including stricture, fistula, or chordee were seen in 60% of patients completing both stages and 32% required ≥1 revision. However, 71% of 2-stage patients were free of significant problems at last follow-up.ConclusionsWe found BMG to be a reasonable option for use in complex pediatric urethral reconstruction. Tubularized grafts had poor results, and we no longer use them. We favor a 2-stage approach for all patients except those with “simple” non-hypospadiac strictures. Although revision procedures were not uncommon, the majority of patients were ultimately free of long-term problems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction in children: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following dissection, the graft is defatted and then stored in saline until it is needed. The intraoral defect can be packed until hemostasis is achieved or closed with a running suture [ 54 55 ].…”

Section: Urethroplastymentioning

confidence: 99%

Tissue transfer techniques in reconstructive urology

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tissue transfer techniques are an essential part of the reconstructive urologist's armamentarium. Flaps and graft techniques are widely used in genital and urethral reconstruction. A graft is tissue that is moved from a donor site to a recipient site without its native blood supply. The main types of grafts used in urology are full thickness grafts, split thickness skin grafts and buccal mucosa grafts. Flaps are transferred from the donor site to the recipient site on a pedicle containing its native blood supply. Flaps can be classified based on blood supply, elevation methods or the method of transfer. The most used flaps in urology include penile, preputial, and scrotal skin. We review the various techniques used in reconstructive urology and the outcomes of these techniques.

show abstract

“…Further valuable characteristics encompass straightforward harvesting and absence of hair. Histologically, the grafts show a high elastin fiber content providing resilience, and a thin highly vascular lamina propria facilitating neovascularization (Cohen et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While harvesting a buccal mucosal graft, we took into consideration the location of Stenson's duct, which must not be harmed. The mucosa harvested a slightly larger size than the donor site defect as a 10% to 15% graft contracture is expected (Cohen et al, 2012). After infiltration of the buccal mucosa with lidocaine plus adrenaline (1:200,000), the mucosa is mobilized in the submucosal plain.…”

Section: Surgical Technique: Rotational Advancement and Buccal Mucosamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotational Advancement in Cleft Nose Rhinoplasty – Buccal Mucosal Grafts Serve as a Powerful Tool

Kehrer¹,

Nijhuis²,

Pesthy³

et al. 2018

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Single-Surgeon Experience of 87 Buccal Mucosal Graft Harvests

Abstract: Therapeutic, IV.

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Use of buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction in children: a retrospective cohort study

Use of buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction in children: a retrospective cohort study

Tissue transfer techniques in reconstructive urology

Rotational Advancement in Cleft Nose Rhinoplasty – Buccal Mucosal Grafts Serve as a Powerful Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About