Urology | 2021

Single-Port Robotic Posterior Urethroplasty Using Buccal Mucosa Grafts: Technique and Outcomes.

 
 
 

Abstract


OBJECTIVE\nTo describe the technique, feasibility and short-term outcomes of buccal mucosa grafts in robotic lower urinary tract reconstruction.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe reviewed 9 patients who underwent single-port robotic posterior urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft from May-December 2019. Variables included patient demographics, diagnosis/etiology, and intraoperative parameters. Intraabdominal or extraperitoneal transvesical approaches are used for the stricture via supraumbilical access, and if necessary, perineal dissection is performed. Cystoscopy identifies the extent of stenosis. Anastomosis is completed with buccal mucosal graft and rectus abdominis, omental or gracilis flaps as needed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe mean age was 65.4 years. Robotic urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft was performed for vesicourethral anastomotic strictures (n=7), urethral strictures (n=4), pubic fistula after robotic posterior urethroplasty (n=1), and anastomotic distraction (n=1). Strictures occurred after prostate cancer treatments (n=8) and trauma (n=1). All patients had prior failed endoscopic interventions: balloon dilatation, resection/incision of bladder neck, internal urethrotomy under direct vision, urethral stents, and posterior urethroplasty. Mean defect length was 3.9 cm. Five of 9 patients had ancillary procedures including rectus abdominis (n=3), omental or gracilis (both n=1) flap harvests. No intraoperative complications occurred. Median operative time was 377 minutes, blood loss was 200 mL, and length of stay was 2 days. Postoperative 30-day complications included urinary tract infection, epididymitis, anemia, recurrent stricture, and small bowel obstruction requiring surgery (all n=1). Median follow-up was 11.7 months.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nBuccal mucosa grafts with ancillary maneuvers such as flap interposition or adjacent tissue transfer in robotic lower tract reconstruction is durable, safe, and comparable to open approaches.

Volume None
Pages None
DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.049
Language English
Journal Urology

Full Text