唇黏膜补片修复前尿道狭窄的疗效观察

目的 探讨应用唇黏膜补片尿道成形术治疗复杂性前尿道狭窄的有效性。方法：2004年3月～2008年9月应用自体下唇黏膜补片行尿道成形术治疗复杂性前尿道狭窄27例。尿道狭窄长度为2．0～7．0cm,平均长度3．9cm。结果：术后随访5～30个月,平均14．1个月。排尿通畅22例（81．5％）,最大尿流率16．9～40．2ml／s,平均23．6ml／s;再次狭窄5例（18．5％）,其中近端吻合口狭窄2例,远端吻合口狭窄2例,分别予以尿道内切开及扩张后,最大尿流率保持在15ml／s以上;1例行黏膜管状尿道成形术患者出现管腔缩窄,予以再次行口腔颊黏膜替代后排尿通畅。下唇取材部位黏膜均愈合良好,1例患者出现口周麻木并持续6个月。结论：下唇黏膜取材方便,取材后供体部位并发症少,适于用作尿道狭窄成形术的替代物。     

舌黏膜尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄的初步报告

目的:探讨舌黏膜补片法尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄的疗效。方法:采用舌黏膜尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄14例。尿道狭窄段3.5~14cm,平均6.2cm;术前耻骨上膀胱造瘘8例,余6例排尿均较为困难,最大尿流率2.5~5.5ml/s,平均3.8ml/s。结果:术后随访2~8个月,1例因伤口感染致尿道皮肤瘘,余患者均排尿通畅,最大尿流率增至22~51ml/s,平均29.6ml/s。结论:舌黏膜具有取材方便、对患者创伤小、抗感染力强等特点,是一种较好的尿道替代物,尤其适合尿道狭窄段<6cm的患者。     

影响口腔黏膜尿道成形治疗复杂性尿道狭窄疗效的相关因素

目的：探讨口腔黏膜尿道成形治疗复杂性尿道狭窄影响疗效的相关因素。方法：对采用口腔黏膜替代尿道成形术76例患者的尿道狭窄位置与长度、口腔黏膜宽度、术前手术次数、支架管留置时间等与狭窄复发率进行单因素分析。结果：76例随访3～60个月,平均24．1个月,术后初期排尿通畅61例（80．3％）;再次狭窄15例,其中3例同时伴尿道皮肤瘘,4例伴尿道假性憩室。2例经数次尿道扩张、8例再次手术后排尿通畅,总成功率为93．4％。结论：尿道狭窄复发率与黏膜宽度明显相关（P〈0．05）。在0．8～2．0cm范围内口腔黏膜条越宽,尿道狭窄发生率越低;狭窄长度与术前手术次数对短期狭窄复发率无明显影响。     

尿道背侧颊黏膜镶嵌补片法治疗长段前尿道狭窄

目的 评价颊黏膜尿道背侧镶嵌技术尿道修复重建手术的有效性和安全性.方法 男性前尿道狭窄患者57例.平均年龄36(17～52)岁.尿道狭窄长度平均3.0(2.5～7.0)cm.颊黏膜取材长度平均4.0(3.5～8.0)cm,平均宽度2.3(I.8～2.5)am.57例均有经尿道内窥镜冷切电切手术史,其中1次手术史29例(51%),2次20例(35%),3次8例(14%),行耻骨上膀胱造瘘48例,9例采用尿道扩张维持.手术游离并旋转尿道,并于尿道背侧纵行切开,6-0可吸收线缝合颊黏膜与尿道切缘.保留尿管4周,拔管时行顺行尿道造影.患者排尿困难和尿线变细、尿道造影或尿道镜发现尿道管腔狭窄<16 F确定为尿道狭窄复发.结果 57例手术均成功,平均手术时间135(105150)min.平均随访11.2(1～23)个月.尿道通畅54例(95%),术后2～3个月复发3例(5%),狭窄部位均为远端的颊黏膜与尿道结合部,行尿道内窥镜冷刀切开,定期尿道扩张治疗.伤口感染3例,未发生尿瘘及尿道憩室.患者口腔疼痛持续2～5 d,平均2.3 d.术后无张VI困难、颊部麻木及腮腺导管梗阻等并发症发生,VI腔颊部均未见瘢痕形成.结论 VI腔颊黏膜尿道背侧镶嵌补片修复重建尿道,效果确切、并发症少、狭窄复发率低,是理想的长段前尿道狭窄的修复重建手段.     

舌黏膜尿道成形术治疗复杂性尿道下裂

目的 总结21例舌黏膜尿道成形术治疗复杂性尿道下裂的经验与体会.方法 根据阴茎局部尿道皮肤和尿道缺损的程度,以及阴茎腹侧既往手术后瘢痕、阴茎皮肤张力情况,切取口腔舌黏膜游离皮瓣,宽1.5～2.0 cm、长2～9 cm,2010年11月至2011年10月临床应用21例,其中舌黏膜嵌入式即Dorsal inlay术式16例,舌黏膜管状法即Tube术式5例(其中Tube+ Duply术式2例),术后定期进行随访并进行尿流率检测观察排尿情况.结果 术后随访3～12个月,21例患者的舌黏膜游离皮瓣均存活,术后排尿通畅、尿线粗、无尿瘘、外形良好及尿流率测定正常者13例,占61.9％ (13/21)；并发症为尿瘘3例、尿道狭窄5例,占38.1％(8/21).舌供皮区均一期愈合,且未出现出血、麻木、舌活动受限、发声异常及味觉改变等.结论 舌黏膜尿道成形术是治疗复杂性尿道下裂较理想的术式,但Tube术式易发生尿道狭窄,应早期发现及定期尿道扩张；Dorsal inlay术式术后并发症发生率较低且效果良好,可优先考虑此术式.     

口腔黏膜补片用于前尿道狭窄尿道成形的临床观察

为了探讨口腔黏膜尿道成形治疗前尿道狭窄的价值,我们采用口腔黏膜补片进行尿道成形治疗29例前尿道狭窄患者.近期效果较好.     

基于复杂性前尿道狭窄游离舌黏膜改良尿道重建的临床观察

目的:探讨舌黏膜在复杂性前尿道狭窄中尿道重建的疗效及其并发症.方法:回顾性分析安徽医科大学第三附属医院泌尿外科2017年12月至2019年6月间收治的10例复杂性前尿道狭窄采用舌黏膜尿道重建术的患者,收集患者的年龄、尿道狭窄的病因、尿道狭窄的长度临床资料.统计分析患者术前术后最大尿流率(Qmax)、心理状态评分(MSS...     

口腔内黏膜尿道成形治疗前尿道狭窄10年经验总结

目的 探讨口腔内黏膜尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄的长期效果. 方法 2001年1月至2010年12月,应用口腔内黏膜(颊黏膜和舌黏膜)尿道成形治疗前尿道狭窄255例.尿道狭窄段长度3 ～18 cm,平均6 cm.尿道成形采用保留原尿道板的扩大尿道成形术或埋藏黏膜条背侧替代尿道成形术.对49例尿道狭窄段≥8 cm者采取双侧颊黏膜拼接、颊粘膜与舌黏膜拼接或双侧连续长条舌黏膜尿道成形. 结果 术后随访8 ～120个月,平均37个月.230例患者排尿通畅,尿线粗,最大尿流率为16～51 ml/s,平均26 ml/s.尿道造影显示重建段尿道管腔通畅.总成功率90.2％.25例患者于术后1年内发生并发症,其中尿道再次狭窄17例,尿道皮肤瘘8例.17例尿道再狭窄患者中15例再次行口腔内黏膜尿道成形,2例吻合口狭窄行尿道内切开,术后排尿通畅;8例尿道皮肤瘘均接受尿瘘修补术后治愈. 结论 口腔颊黏膜和舌黏膜均是良好的尿道替代物,舌黏膜取材较颊黏膜更为便利;口腔内多种黏膜的组合移植重建尿道是治疗长段前尿道狭窄( ≥8 cm)的有效方法.     

舌黏膜尿道成形治疗前尿道狭窄（附80例报告）

目的：研究舌黏膜尿道成形治疗尿道狭窄的有效性和安全性。方法：2006年8月～2008年12月采用舌黏膜尿道成形治疗80例前尿道狭窄,尿道狭窄段2．5～18cm,其中30例为长段尿道狭窄（9～18cm）采用双侧舌黏膜或舌黏膜与颊黏膜或与带蒂包皮拼接尿道成形治疗。尿道成形采用两种术式：保留原尿道板的扩大尿道腔37例;埋藏黏膜条43例。结果：术后随访4～30（平均16．8）个月,7例发生并发症,其中尿瘘4例,再次发生尿道狭窄3例,其余患者排尿通畅,最大尿流率从15．2～54．6（平均28．7）ml／s。结论：舌黏膜是一种修复前尿道狭窄较好的尿道替代物,双侧舌黏膜尿道成形能成功治疗长段、复杂性尿道狭窄。     

舌黏膜与颊黏膜或包皮拼接重建尿道治疗长段尿道狭窄

目的 探讨舌黏膜与颊黏膜或包皮拼接尿道成形治疗多节段或长段尿道狭窄的安全性和治疗效果.方法 尿道狭窄患者11例,年龄24～56岁,平均32岁.其中前尿道长段狭窄7例,狭窄长度10～15 cm,平均12 cm;尿道2～3处狭窄4例.病程6个月～8年.取舌黏膜条与颊黏膜条拼接尿道成形治疗7例,舌黏膜条与包皮瓣拼接尿道成形治疗4例.结果 11例手术顺利.1例舌黏膜与包皮拼接尿道成形患者术后3个月并发尿道外口狭窄,经手术矫正后排尿通畅,术后8个月最大尿流率27.5 ml/s.余10例排尿通畅、尿线粗,术后随访5～12个月,平均10个月,最大尿流率21～36 ml/s,平均26.8 ml/s.结论 舌黏膜与颊黏膜或包皮拼接尿道成形具有取材方便、患者创伤小的特占点,是治疗长段尿道律窄的较好术式.尤其适用于尿道多处狭窄者.     

尿道狭窄和尿道成形术的相关问题

尿道重建手术成功率的高低与多种因素有关,复杂性尿道成形手术技巧的掌握需要多年经验的积累与总结。本文对尿道狭窄的各种检查．包括影像学、膀胱尿道造影和体检,手术时机和患者的选择,前、后尿道成形术的关键等相关问题作一论述。     

Urethral strictures

What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Urethral strictures are common and increasingly common in an ageing population. The treatment is controversial and particularly the relative roles of urethrotomy or urethral dilatation on the one hand and urethroplasty on the other. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject including less commonly discussed issues such as the history and pathology of stricture disease. We would hope that a comprehensive overview of the subject will give a sharper perspective to aid the investigation and management of patients with urethral strictures.     

Lingual mucosal graft substitution urethroplasty for anterior urethral strictures: our technique of graft harvesting

OBJECTIVE: To describe our technique of lingual mucosal graft harvesting for substitution urethroplasty and the complications encountered at the donor site. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients who underwent lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty between May 2006 and March 2007 were included in this study. TECHNIQUE: The site of the graft harvest is the lateral mucosal lining of the tongue. Graft harvesting is started from the posterior landmark of the graft on the left side of the tongue. It is continued across the tip of the tongue to the other side if lengthier graft is required. The graft harvesting site is simultaneously closed with continuous running suture using 4-0 polyglactin suture to achieve immediate and good homeostasis. RESULTS: Mean duration of follow up was 4.2 months. Average length of harvested graft was 6.5 cm. Mean harvesting time was 18 min. At the first postoperative day, 92% patients experienced pain at donor site and 24% had slurring of speech. By third postoperative day, >70% were free of pain and four had slurring of speech. By sixth postoperative day, none of the patient suffered pain. All the patients were able to resume oral fluid within 24 h, eat soft solid diet in 48-72 h and return to normal diet after 4-5 days of surgery. No patient suffered from difficulty in opening the mouth, salivation disturbances, peri-oral numbness or difficulty in protrusion of tongue. CONCLUSION: Lingual mucosal graft harvesting is a simple procedure, provides lengthy graft and is associated with minimal donor site complications.     

Dorsal onlay lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty for urethral strictures in women

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique and results of dorsal onlay lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty for the definitive management of urethral strictures in women.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 15 women (mean age 42 years) with a history suggestive of urethral stricture who had undergone multiple urethral dilatations and/or urethrotomy were selected for dorsal onlay LMG urethroplasty after thorough evaluation, from October 2006 to March 2008. After a suprameatal inverted‐U incision, the dorsal aspect of the urethra was dissected and urethrotomy was done at the 12 o’clock position across the strictured segment. Tailored LMG harvested from the ventrolateral aspect of the tongue was then sutured to the urethrotomy wound over an 18 F silicone catheter.

RESULTS

The preoperative mean maximum urinary flow rate of 7.2 mL/s increased to 29.87 mL/s, 26.95 mL/s and 26.86 mL/s with a ‘normal’ flow rate curve at 3, 6 and 12 months follow‐up, respectively. One patient at the 3‐month follow‐up had submeatal stenosis and required urethral dilatation thrice at monthly intervals. At the 1‐year follow‐up, none of the present patients had any neurosensory complications, urinary incontinence, or long‐term functional/aesthetic complication at the donor site.

CONCLUSION

LMG urethroplasty using the dorsal onlay technique should be offered for correction of persistent female urethral stricture as it provides a simple, safe and effective approach with durable results.     

Oral complications after lingual mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the complications at donor site after lingual mucosal graft harvesting for urethroplasty. METHODS: From March 2006 to December 2006, 30 patients of anterior urethral stricture underwent lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty. The site of the harvest graft was lateral mucosal lining of the tongue. Donor site complications, that is, pain, slurring of speech, pain during speech, salivatory changes and difficulty in protrusion of tongue were noted. RESULTS: The mean (range) age of patients was 36.2 years (22-52 years). The mean (range) stricture length was 8.4 cm (4.8-16 cm) and graft length was 8.5 cm (4.2-16.2 cm). Mean duration of follow up was 3.8 months. At the first postoperative day, 90% of the patients experienced pain at donor site and 20% had slurring of speech. Pain was mild to discomforting in 80% and distressing to horrible in 13% of the patients. By third postoperative day, two-thirds were pain free, one-thirds had mild pain only and none had slurring of speech. By day 6 of surgery, all patients were pain free. Six per cent of the patients reported numbness over ventral aspect of anterior half of tongue, which persisted in the first follow up and subsided by second follow up. There was no bleeding, haematoma or infection at donor site. All patients were able to resume oral fluid within 24 h, eat soft solid diet in 48-72 h and return to normal diet after 4-5 days of surgery. No patient complained of difficulty in opening the mouth, salivation disturbances, perioral numbness or difficulty in protrusion of tongue. No long-term functional or aesthetic complications were reported. CONCLUSION: Lingual mucosal graft harvesting is feasible, provides a long graft, is easy to carry out and is the least morbid procedure.