Nonclosure Versus Closure of Buccal Mucosal Graft Harvest Site: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Pain management strategies in urethral reconstruction: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Few investigations explore pain recovery comprehensively following urethral reconstruction, and understanding pain pathways that lead to discomfort following reconstruction has posed challenges. Options for pain control aside from opioids continue to be in the early forms of investigation, and remain an important strategy to combat the well-documented burden of the opioid epidemic. We conduct a detailed assessment of pain pathways in patients undergoing urethral reconstruction and further outline non-narcotic based pain management strategies in those undergoing urethroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to describe pain pathways involved in urethral reconstruction with buccal graft, and postoperative pain recovery. We searched for pain management techniques performed by fields similar to urology, and those being utilized in urethroplasty with buccal graft.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

Innervation of the penoscrotal areas and mouth are well-defined, but understanding postoperative pain after urethroplasty remains a challenge. Preventative analgesia, nerve blocks, and multimodal analgesia have been employed by colorectal and gynecological surgeons. Urologists have utilized similar techniques for patients undergoing urethral reconstruction with buccal graft.

CONCLUSIONS

Few investigations explore pain recovery comprehensively following urethral reconstruction, but we believe that utilizing a combination of preventative analgesia, nerve blocks, and multimodal analgesia will have acceptable outcomes in post-surgical patients undergoing recovery. Additional work is required to further explore how combined pain management strategies can optimally reduce postoperative pain.

Buccal Reharvest for Urethroplasty After Graft Site Closure is Safe and Does Not Affect Long-Term Oral Health

OBJECTIVE

To understand the effects of reharvest on safety and long-term oral health in patients requiring buccal mucosa reharvest from a previously harvested and closed site for management of recurrent urethral stricture disease.

METHODS

We conducted an IRB approved retrospective chart review from 2014 to 2019 of all patients who underwent buccal graft urethroplasty at our referral based academic medical center. Surgical data was collected, and the validated Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) survey was administered to each patient. Descriptive statistics were performed and compared between patients who underwent a buccal graft reharvest and patients who underwent standard first time buccal harvest. Buccal graft beds were closed on both initial and reharvest.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent a total of 5 ipsilateral buccal graft reharvests and 6 patients underwent first time buccal harvest. Median length of follow-up for all patients was 6 months (1-35 mo) and the median length of all grafts was 6 cm (5-6 cm) with no difference in the reharvest and first-time cohorts. For patients that underwent buccal reharvest, their median post-operative OHIP-14 score was 0 (0-9 pts) out of a possible 56 points. This compared to a median postoperative OHIP-14 score of 0 (0-10 pts) for patients who underwent first time buccal harvests with oral complications limited to one post-operative hematoma in the first-time cohort.

CONCLUSION

Buccal grafts can safely be reharvested from a previous site with minimal concern for long-term oral health outcomes.

Determining Perioperative Practice Patterns in Urethroplasty: A Survey of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To better delineate perioperative urethroplasty practice patterns among reconstructive urologists given that management strategies in reconstructive urology have generally been poorly described.

METHODS

An online survey examining perioperative management of anterior urethroplasty patients was administered to Society of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS) members between August-October 2019. Questions pertained to tissue transfer, pharmacologic prophylaxis, catheter use, follow-up, and post-operative care.

RESULTS

A total of 248 GURS members were invited to participate, with a response rate of 57.2% (n = 142). Most participants performed >20 urethroplasties per year (n = 108, 76.1%). Almost all respondents (97.9%, n = 139) used intraoperative intravenous antibiotics. A minority of surgeons used intraoperative pharmacologic thromboembolism prophylaxis (n = 57, 40.1%). Surgeons prefer buccal mucosa for grafting (n = 138, 97.2%) with many leaving the donor site open (n = 76, 53.5%). Only 21.8% (n = 31) of surgeons prescribe bedrest for patients and 25.4% (n = 36) routinely place drains. Postoperatively, oral antimicrobials are routinely administered (n=100, 70.4%), with most continuing until the urinary catheter is removed (70, 72.2%). Patients commonly had a urethral catheter for 2-3 (n = 72, 58.5%) or 3-4 weeks (n = 37, 30.1%). At catheter removal, surgeons routinely perform urethral imaging with contrast (n=96, 67.6%). Most surgeons prefer some form of objective investigation (n = 111, 78.2%) (uroflowmetry [n = 91, 82.0%], post-void residual [n = 88, 79.3%]). Cystoscopy is also commonly performed (n = 64, 57.7%). These investigations are routinely performed at 2-3 (n = 49, 44.2%) or 4-6 months (n = 38, 34.2%) postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Despite general consensus on urethroplasty management options, heterogeneity remains in the areas of antibiotic use, VTE prophylaxis, donor site management, catheter management, and follow-up assessment.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Buccal Mucosal Graft Harvest Site Non-Closure versus Closure in Patients Undergoing Urethral Reconstruction

Purpose

To assess the effects of buccal mucosal graft site non-closure versus closure on postoperative oral morbidity for male undergoing augmentation urethroplasty for urethral stricture.

Materials and Methods

We included randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were male over the age of 18 with urethral stricture disease requiring reconstruction with buccal mucosal graft harvest. Primary outcomes of the review were postoperative oral pain, need for secondary oral procedures and cosmetic defects.

Results

We included 5 studies with 346 randomized patients with urethral strictures, of whom 260 completed the trials. In terms of primary outcomes, non-closure graft site may reduce oral pain on postoperative day #1 (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.24 lower; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 lower to 0.12 higher; low certainty evidence [CoE]) but we are uncertain how this impacts pain on postoperative days 3 to 6 (SMD 0.35; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.81 higher; very low CoE). We are also very uncertain as to how it affects the need for secondary oral procedures (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.28; very low CoE). Non-closure may increase the risk of cosmetic defects (RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.93 to 6.22; low CoE).

Conclusions

This review describes the trade-off for buccal mucosal graft site non-closure versus closure for various patient-important outcomes; decision-making will likely hinge on the relative value individual patients and surgeons place on them. The supporting evidence was rated as low and very low, thereby signaling substantial underlying uncertainty and the need for better trials.