You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction: Trauma & Reconstructive Surgery (II)1 Apr 2013102 EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX VERSUS BUCCAL MUCOSA GRAFT IN URETHRAL STRICTURE REPAIR David Koslov, Kyle Wood, Ilya Gorbachinksy, Christopher King, Ryan Terlecki, and Brandy Hood David KoslovDavid Koslov Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author , Kyle WoodKyle Wood Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author , Ilya GorbachinksyIlya Gorbachinksy Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author , Christopher KingChristopher King Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author , Ryan TerleckiRyan Terlecki Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author , and Brandy HoodBrandy Hood Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.1480AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urethral strictures can be a challenge to repair. Many are amenable to single stage repair, however longer and/or more complex strictures require multiple stage repairs. Buccal mucosa is a well established modality in bridging these distances and has become the standard of care in multiple stage repairs. Yet harvesting buccal mucosa, a limited resource, adds time and potential morbidity to this procedure. An alternative matrix that is commercially available and performs well clinically would be ideal. We report our experience with urethral repair comparing buccal mucosa graft and Acell®, an extracellular matrix (ECM), for urethroplasty. The objective of this study was to compare ECM and buccal mucosa rate of contraction and take in urethral stricture repair. METHODS This is a retrospective chart review of a single surgeon's experience with 3 patients undergoing the first stage of a multistage urethral repair using extracellular matrix only in one patient and both buccal mucosa and extracellular matrix in the remaining two. Comparison of buccal mucosa and ECM contraction rates towards midline and take were demonstrated by time lapse photography. RESULTS Strictures were primarily bulbar, with one extending to the pendulous urethra. Average age was 68.6 (low of 66 high of 73). In all patients, both extracellular matrix and buccal mucosa showed good take, with appropriate granulation. Over 3 months, the patient receiving ECM only showed equal contraction towards midline, with good granulation. Patient reports satisfaction with treatment. Over 5 months, patients receiving both ECM and buccal showed slightly more contraction in ECM versus buccal mucosa. Photo at original procedure demonstrated buccal graft occupying 34.6% of urethral plate, and 54.3% at 5 months. Contraction was decided through photograph analysis using the urethral midline as a marker. Percentage of total wound occupied by the respective tissue was calculated. CONCLUSIONS Here we demonstrate a novel use of Acell®, a commercially available extracellular matrix. Compared to the current standard of care for urethral reconstruction, Acell® shows similar take and rates of contraction. All patients demonstrated urethral patency at follow up. This use of ECM is promising when compared to the standard of care, and merits further investigation. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e41 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information David Koslov Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author Kyle Wood Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author Ilya Gorbachinksy Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author Christopher King Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author Ryan Terlecki Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author Brandy Hood Winston Salem, NC More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract