Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 385–389 | Cite as

Oral quality of life after buccal mucosal graft harvest for substitution urethroplasty. More than a bite?

  • E. MoránEmail author
  • M.A. Bonillo
  • L. Fernández-Estevan
  • E. Martínez-Cuenca
  • S. Arlandis
  • E. Broseta
  • F. Boronat
Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of our study was to analyze the oral quality of life (QoL) in patients with urethral stricture treated with BMG by using a validated questionnaire (OIDP).

Materials and methods

A prospective, single-arm, observational single-centre study of a cohort of patients scheduled for BMG Urethroplasty was conducted. OIDP assesses the impact of oral conditions on daily activities including an oral QoL question (0–10). The questionnaire was self-administered before, 3 months postoperatively and at the end of the study. Means, pre- and postoperatively, were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze the risk factors for a low quality of life (<8) after surgery.

Results

We included 41 patients (2013–2017). The mean preoperative oral QoL was 9.33 points (SD1.16). Preoperative mean OIDP dimensional score and global score were 0,5 (SD:0.02) and 0,8%. The most frequently preoperative altered aspect was hygiene. Mean oral QoL, 3 months after surgery, was 8,56 (SD1.89) and OIDP dimensional score and global score were 0,67 (SD0.21) and 1,1%. Mean oral QoL at the end of the study (mean 3,12 years) was 8,50 (SD1.13). OIDP dimensional score and global score were 0,7 (SD 0.16) and 1,1%.The most frequently altered aspect at the end of the study was eating. No statistical (p = 0.07) decrease in oral QoL was found. The increase in OIDP dimensional and global score was also not statistically significant. Neither age nor smoking, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular morbidity, previous OIDP score, width, length of the graft, or surgery success could explain a low oral QoL alter graft harvesting.

Conclusions

BMG harvesting is not free of problems at the donor site. Eating seems to be the most affected aspect after surgery. Nevertheless, those sequelae do not induce a reduction in oral QoL.

Keywords

Urethroplasty Buccal mucosal graft Oral quality of life OIDP Questionnaire Donor site 

Notes

Author contributions

EM: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript writing/editing. MAB: project development, data analysis, data collection, manuscript writing/editing. LF-E: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript writing/editing. EM-C:project development, data collection or management. SA: project development, data collection or management. EB: project development, data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing. FB: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Yes.

Supplementary material

345_2018_2381_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (106 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 105 kb)
345_2018_2381_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (78 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 77 kb)
345_2018_2381_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (39 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 38 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Chapple C, Andrich D, Atala A et al (2014) SIU/ICUD consultation on urethral strictures: the management of anterior urethral stricture disease using substitution urethroplasty. Urology 83(3 Suppl):S31–S47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dublin N, Stewart LH (2004) Oral complications after buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int 94(6):867 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Markiewicz MR, DeSantis JL, Margarone JE, Pogrel MA, Chuang SK (2008) Morbidity associated with oral mucosa harvest for urological re-construction: an overview. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbagli G, Vallasciani S, Romano G, Fabbri F, Guazzoni G, Lazzeri M (2010) Morbidity of oral mucosa graft harvesting from a single cheek. Eur Urol 58:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Locker D (1988) Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health 5:3–18Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montero J, Bravo M, Vicente MP, Galindo MP, Lopez JF, Albaladejo A (2010) Dimensional structure of the oral health-related quality of life in healthy spanish workers. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    John MT (2007) Exploring dimensions of oral health-related quality of life using expert’s opinion. Qual Life Res 16:697–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Astrom AN, Mtaya M (2009) Factorial structure and cross-cultural invariance of the oral impact on daily performance. Eur J Oral Sci 117:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lumen N, Vierstraete-Verlinde S, Oosterlinck W, Hoebeke P, Palminteri E, Goes C et al (2016) Buccal versus lingual mucosa graft in anterior urethroplasty: a prospective comparison of surgical outcome and donor-site morbidity. J Urol 195(1):112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soave A, Dahlem R, Pinnschmidt HO, Rink M, Langetepe J, Engel O et al (2018) 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 73(6):910–922.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthr Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S240–S252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenbaum CM, Schimd M, Judwig TA, Kluth LA, Dahlem R, Fisch M et al (2016) Redo BMG urethroplasty: success rate, oral morbidity and functional outcomes. BJU Int 118(5):797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akhtar A, Khattar N, Goel H, Rao S, Tanwar R, Sood R (2017) Looking beyond oral mucosa: initial results of everted saphenous vein graft urethroplasty (eSVGU) in long anterior urethral strictures. Arab J Urol 15(3):228–235 (9) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu Y, Shen Z, Liu G, Liu B, Hua X, Xiang Y et al (2017) Urethral reconstruction using everted saphenous vein graft in a rabbit model: one year outcomes. Urol Int 99(1):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atala A, Danilevskiy M, Lyundup A, Glybochko P, Butnaru D, Vinarov A et al (2017) The potential role of tissue-engineered urethral substitution: clinical and preclinical studies. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 11(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy AC, Vanni AJ (2018) Refractory urethral stricture management: indications for alternative grafts and flaps. Curr Urol Rep 19(3):20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyLa Fe University HospitalValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Dental Medicine, School of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations