Dorsal onlay augmentation urethroplasty with small intestinal submucosa: Modified Barbagli technique for strictures of the bulbar urethra

Aim: To present the results from one clinic’s experience of using small intestinal submucosa (SIS) in augmentation urethroplasty for management of strictures of the bulbar urethra. Methods: Urethral surgery was performed in nine men with strictures 4–6 cm. All of the patients were evaluated by histo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of urology 2006-11, Vol.13 (11), p.1415-1417
Main Authors: DONKOV, IVO I, BASHIR, AZMAT, ELENKOV, CHAVDAR HG, PANCHEV, PETAR K
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
augmentation urethroplasty
dorsal onlay
Humans
Intestinal Mucosa - transplantation
Intestine, Small - transplantation
Male
Middle Aged
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods
small intestinal submucosa (SIS)
Treatment Outcome
Urethra - abnormalities
Urethra - surgery
urethral stricture
Urethral Stricture - surgery
Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male - methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim: To present the results from one clinic’s experience of using small intestinal submucosa (SIS) in augmentation urethroplasty for management of strictures of the bulbar urethra. Methods: Urethral surgery was performed in nine men with strictures 4–6 cm. All of the patients were evaluated by history, physical examination, retrograde urethrogram, and uroflowmetry. Four layers of SIS were soaked in saline or Ringer’s solution for 15 minutes at 37°C, and the inner surface of the patch was gently fenestrated with a thin scalpel. The patch was spread‐fixed onto the tunica albuginea. The mucosa was sutured to the submucosal graft first at 2–3 mm inwards from the SIS margins, then the spongiosum tissue was attached to the margins with interrupted absorbable sutures. Results: Of the nine patients who underwent augmentation urethroplasty using SIS, only one had re‐stricture at 6 months due to urethral infection. At 18 months after the surgery the uroflowmetry of the other eight patients was 20–21 mL/s. In terms of complications, six patients reported having post‐micturition dribbling, and seven patients reported lack of morning erections for 35–69 days after surgery. Conclusions: Using SIS is a safe procedure; however, long‐term follow‐up is needed to substantiate the good short‐term results.
ISSN:0919-8172
1442-2042
DOI:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01587.x