FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2052807437> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2052807437 endingPage "2228" @default.
• W2052807437 startingPage "2225" @default.
• W2052807437 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyINVESTIGATIVE UROLOGY1 May 2002Treatment of Urethral Defects: Skin, Buccal or Bladder Mucosa, Tube or Patch? An Experimental Study in Dogs M.T. EL-SHERBINY, H. ABOL-ENEIN, M.S. DAWABA, and M.A. GHONEIM M.T. EL-SHERBINYM.T. EL-SHERBINY More articles by this author , H. ABOL-ENEINH. ABOL-ENEIN More articles by this author , M.S. DAWABAM.S. DAWABA More articles by this author , and M.A. GHONEIMM.A. GHONEIM More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65133-6AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We studied 3 graft materials and 2 urethroplasty techniques in 24 adult male mongrel dogs. Materials and Methods: The animals were divided into 2 equal groups. In group 1 a 4 cm. segment of perineal urethra was excised and tubed urethroplasty was performed using free full-thickness skin, buccal and bladder mucosa grafts in 4 dogs each. In group 2 a 4 cm. urethral strip was excised and onlay urethroplasty was performed using the same graft materials in 4 dogs each. Retrograde urethrography was done and the animals were sacrificed at week 12. Autopsy specimens were calibrated with a 10Fr catheter. Hematoxylin and eosin stained sections were examined. Masson’s trichrome stain was used to determine the extent of fibrosis. Results: Urethral stricture was diagnosed by radiology and confirmed by calibration in 8 of the 12 dogs (66%) in group 1 but in only 1 of the 12 (8%) in group 2 (p <0.004). Buccal mucosa grafts were associated with the lowest stricture rate of 12%, followed by 37% for bladder mucosa and 62% for skin (p <0.2). There was no difference in neovascularization among the 3 grafts. Graft shrinkage was less than 10% for buccal mucosa compared with 20% to 40% for skin and bladder mucosa. The shrinkage rate was similar for the onlay and tube techniques. The intensity of chronic inflammation and fibrosis was highest in the skin grafts. Circumferential fibrosis was noted in association with tubed urethroplasty but not with the onlay technique. Conclusions: The theoretical advantages of buccal mucosal grafts were pathologically demonstrated. When possible, grafts should be used as an onlay rather than as a complete tube. References 1 : A one-stage hypospadias repair. J Urol1961; 85: 166. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Repair of complication of hypospadias surgery. J Urol1993; 150: 1415. Abstract, Google Scholar 3 : Long-term follow-up of bladder mucosa graft for male urethral reconstruction. J Urol1994; 151: 1056. Abstract, Google Scholar 4 : Buccal mucosa grafts in hypospadias surgery. Br J Urol1995; 76: 23. Google Scholar 5 : The use of buccal mucosa patch graft in the management of anterior urethral strictures. J Urol1993; 149: 276. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Free bladder mucosa graft biology: unique engraftment characteristics in rabbits. J Urol1992; 148: 663. Abstract, Google Scholar 7 : Use of peritoneal grafts as urethral substitutes in the rabbit. I Pediatr Surg1996; 31: 225. Google Scholar 8 : Use of grafts in urethral stricture reconstruction. J Urol1996; 155: 1912. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Urethral stricture in children: treatment by urethroplasty with bladder mucosa graft. J Urol1992; 148: 1504. Abstract, Google Scholar 10 : Use of bladder mucosal graft for urethral reconstruction. Int J Urol2000; 7: 355. Google Scholar 11 : The buccal mucosal graft for urethral reconstruction: a preliminary report. J Urol1992; 147: 662. Link, Google Scholar From the Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMokhless I, Kader M, Fahmy N and Youssef M (2018) The Multistage Use of Buccal Mucosa Grafts for Complex Hypospadias: Histological ChangesJournal of Urology, VOL. 177, NO. 4, (1496-1500), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2007.Dubey D, Vijjan V, Kapoor R, Srivastava A, Mandhani A, Kumar A and Ansari M (2018) Dorsal Onlay Buccal Mucosa Versus Penile Skin Flap Urethroplasty for Anterior Urethral Strictures: Results From a Randomized Prospective TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 178, NO. 6, (2466-2469), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2007.Husmann D and Rathbun S (2018) Long-Term Followup of Visual Internal Urethrotomy for Management of Short (Less Than 1 Cm) Penile Urethral Strictures Following Hypospadias RepairJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 4S, (1738-1741), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2006.CALADO A, MACEDO A, DELCELO R, de FIGUEIREDO L, ORTIZ V and SROUGI M (2018) THE TUNICA VAGINALIS DORSAL GRAFT URETHROPLASTY: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN RABBITSJournal of Urology, VOL. 174, NO. 2, (765-770), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2005. Volume 167Issue 5May 2002Page: 2225-2228 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsmucous membranetransplantsdogsskinurethraMetricsAuthor Information M.T. EL-SHERBINY More articles by this author H. ABOL-ENEIN More articles by this author M.S. DAWABA More articles by this author M.A. GHONEIM More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2052807437 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2052807437 creator A5023952567 @default.
• W2052807437 creator A5053971810 @default.
• W2052807437 creator A5070428699 @default.
• W2052807437 creator A5089664446 @default.
• W2052807437 date "2002-05-01" @default.
• W2052807437 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2052807437 title "Treatment of Urethral Defects: Skin, Buccal or Bladder Mucosa, Tube or Patch? An Experimental Study in Dogs" @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2012464928 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W202375406 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2060434830 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2069571059 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2406556437 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2408940038 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2419272796 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W2496117621 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W4239909530 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W4298232756 @default.
• W2052807437 cites W49138530 @default.
• W2052807437 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65133-6" @default.
• W2052807437 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11956483" @default.
• W2052807437 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2052807437 type Work @default.
• W2052807437 sameAs 2052807437 @default.
• W2052807437 citedByCount "50" @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372012 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372013 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372014 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372015 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372016 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372017 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372019 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372020 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372021 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372022 @default.
• W2052807437 countsByYear W20528074372023 @default.
• W2052807437 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2052807437 hasAuthorship W2052807437A5023952567 @default.
• W2052807437 hasAuthorship W2052807437A5053971810 @default.
• W2052807437 hasAuthorship W2052807437A5070428699 @default.
• W2052807437 hasAuthorship W2052807437A5089664446 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C125473707 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C163031210 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C195735259 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C2777085111 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C2778655861 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C2778841284 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C2780559512 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C2986629439 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C2991923528 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C59469219 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConcept C74864618 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C125473707 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C141071460 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C142724271 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C163031210 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C195735259 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C199343813 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C2777085111 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C2778655861 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C2778841284 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C2780559512 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C2986629439 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C2991923528 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C59469219 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C71924100 @default.
• W2052807437 hasConceptScore W2052807437C74864618 @default.
• W2052807437 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2052807437 hasLocation W20528074371 @default.
• W2052807437 hasLocation W20528074372 @default.
• W2052807437 hasOpenAccess W2052807437 @default.
• W2052807437 hasPrimaryLocation W20528074371 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W1965309779 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W2019306482 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W2064399316 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W2109120460 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W2366801009 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W2895350496 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W3131201278 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W4234154906 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W4294591426 @default.
• W2052807437 hasRelatedWork W49138530 @default.
• W2052807437 hasVolume "167" @default.
• W2052807437 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2052807437 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2052807437 magId "2052807437" @default.
• W2052807437 workType "article" @default.