Outcomes of staged lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty for redo hypospadias repair

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to present the outcomes for redo hypospadias repair using lingual mucosal graft (LMG).

Patients and methods: Between June 2012 and February 2017, 47 patients underwent staged LMG urethroplasty for redo hypospadias repair. The inclusion criteria were previous failed hypospadias repair with a paucity of local skin that interferes with correction using skin flaps and demands graft urethroplasty. During the first stage, a well-vascularized bed on the tunica albuginea was created. Then, the harvested LMG was secured to the prepared bed. The second-stage urethroplasty was carried out after six months. In this stage, tubularization of the previously implanted LMG was performed. In four cases, tubularization was difficult owing to graft contracture. This difficulty was managed by using the dorsally degloved penile skin as the onlay island flap in three cases and the buccal mucosa onlay graft in the fourth case. In all cases, a second protective layer from the dartos or tunica vaginalis was developed to cover the neourethra.

Results: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of patients at the first stage was 5 (4-6) years, and the median (IQR) duration between both stages was 7 (6-8) months. The median (IQR) follow-up after the second stage was 15 (13-16) months. The median (IQR) number of previous operations was 2 (2-3). The median (IQR) length of the LMG was 3 (2.5-4) cm, and the median (IQR) width was 1 (1-2) cm. No donor-site major complications, but mild oral discomfort in the first week after graft harvesting, were reported in 39 (83%) patients. After the second stage, complications were reported in nine (19.2%) patients, meatal stenosis in five and fistula in four. The reported success rate was 80.9%.

Discussion: Reconstruction of previously failed hypospadias is a challenge owing to local tissue scarring and a paucity of adjacent healthy tissue. In this study, the LMG was used in two-stage redo hypospadias repair after previous repair failure. In the present study, a success rate of 80.9% was reported after the second stage. According to this study and the published series, harvesting the LMG is associated with minimal immediate donor-site complications and no long-term morbidity. Another advantage of the LMG is easy harvesting with effortlessly reachable tongue in comparison with the buccal mucosa that is deep and requires application of a mouth retractor.

Conclusions: Two-stage LMG urethroplasty is a reliable procedure for salvage urethroplasty. Lingual mucosal graft harvesting is easy, with minor oral complications.

Keywords: Hypospadias; Lingual mucosa graft; Two-stage urethroplasty.