title: Outcome of buccal mucosa and lingual mucosa graft urethroplasty in the management of urethral strictures: A comparative study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of the study was to compare the outcome of buccal and lingual mucosa graft (LMG) augmentation urethroplasty along with donor sites morbidities in anterior urethra stricture.
  
  
  METHODS
  From September 2010 to January 2014, 125 patients underwent single stage augmentation urethroplasty. They were randomly divided into two groups to receive either buccal mucosa graft (BMG) or LMG. The patients were prospectively followed for complications and outcome.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Baseline characteristics such as mean age, etiology, stricture length, and location were comparable in both groups. Overall success rate for Group 1 and Group 2 were 69.2% and 80%, respectively. Mean follow-up periods were 28.2 and 25 months in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  LMG provides the better outcome with fewer immediate and delayed complications as compared to BMG. The length of stricture and width of graft were main factors affecting the outcome.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
authors.forename: Sharad
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Chauhan
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
authors.forename: Sher Singh
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Yadav
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
authors.forename: Vinay
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Tomar
keywords: Augmentation; buccal; lingual; urethral stricture; urethroplasty
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):387-94
references.pmid: 17561150
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2008 Jul;54(1):79-85
references.pmid: 18261844
references.citation: BJU Int. 2004 Oct;94(6):867-9
references.pmid: 15476524
references.citation: Med J Armed Forces India. 2013 Jan;69(1):16-20
references.pmid: 24532928
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):2225-8
references.pmid: 11956483
references.citation: Carcinogenesis. 2008 Jun;29(6):1170-7
references.pmid: 18281252
references.citation: Urologe A. 2006 Sep;45 Suppl 4:52-8
references.pmid: 16933123
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 Mar;167(3):1314-7
references.pmid: 11832721
references.citation: Urology. 2003 May;61(5):1008-10
references.pmid: 12736025
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2008 Sep;54(3):671-6
references.pmid: 18155825
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Aug;172(2):580-3
references.pmid: 15247736
references.citation: BJU Int. 2004 Jun;93(9):1191-3
references.pmid: 15180603
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):589-92
references.pmid: 16407002
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Jul;58(1):33-41
references.pmid: 20106587
references.citation: Gut. 1992 Jan;33(1):4-6
references.pmid: 1740275
references.citation: J Urol. 2014 Sep;192(3):808-13
references.pmid: 24533999
references.citation: Urology. 2009 Jan;73(1):105-8
references.pmid: 18848349
references.citation: Int J Urol. 2013 Dec;20(12):1199-203
references.pmid: 23601029
references.citation: BMC Urol. 2009 Sep 21;9:15
references.pmid: 19772567
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):955-7; discussion 957-8
references.pmid: 16094007