Donor site complications of buccal mucosa harvesting in substitution urethroplasty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59736/IJP.24.02.1078Keywords:
Buccal Mucosa, Mouth Diseases, Postoperative Complications, UrethroplastyAbstract
Background: Buccal mucosa is commonly used as the graft of choice in substitution urethroplasty, but donor-site morbidity remains a relevant clinical concern. Evaluating the frequency and predictors of these complications is essential for improving postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to determine the frequency, types, and predictors of donor-site complications following buccal mucosa graft harvesting.
Methods: It was a descriptive prospective study in 74 patients who had undergone buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty within a period of 12 months. Day 1-, 3- and 6-months Donor-site assessments were done. Clinical recording of complications was done. Independent t-tests, chi-square/Fisher exact tests and multivariate logistic regression were used as statistical analysis.
Results: Donor-site complications occurred in 9 patients (12.2%). Edema was noted in 6 (8.1%), difficulty in mouth opening in 3 (4.1%), bleeding in 2 (2.7%), numbness in 2 (2.7%), chewing difficulty in 2 (2.7%), and infection in 1 (1.4%). Overall mouth opening showed minimal reduction, though patients with functional limitation experienced greater declines. Larger graft area (OR 1.12, p = 0.036) and diabetes (13 patients, 17.6%; OR 3.21, p = 0.045) were significant independent predictors of complications. Donor-site closure technique—open in 41 (55.4%) and primary closure in 33 (44.6%)—was not significantly associated with morbidity (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Buccal mucosa graft harvesting is safe and has low donor-site morbidity and most complications are mild and short-lived. One of the risk factors is the larger graft size and diabetes, which highlights the importance of careful graft planning and preoperative optimization.
References
Wessells H, Morey A, Souter L, Rahimi L, Vanni A. Urethral stricture disease guideline amendment (2023). The Journal of urology. 2023;210(1):64-71.
Kulkarni SB, Bhat A, Bhatyal HS, Sharma GR, Dubey DD, Khattar N, et al. The Urological Society of India Guidelines for the management of urethral stricture (Executive Summary). Medknow; 2021. p. 6-9.
Sharma G, Sharma S, Parmar K. Buccal mucosa or penile skin for substitution urethroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Journal of Urology. 2020;36(2):81-8.
Hermosa PC, Campos-Juanatey F, Malo RV, Gómez MÁC, Baños JLG, Trauma, et al. Sexual function after anterior urethroplasty: a systematic review. Translational andrology and urology. 2021;10(6):2554.
Fauzi FA, Abdullah MF, Rahman SA. Bilateral buccal mucosa graft for urethroplasty: A versatile graft. Cureus. 2024;16(2).
Güler Y. Comparison of closure versus non-closure of the intraoral buccal mucosa graft site in urethroplasties. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab Journal of Urology. 2023;21(1):18-30.
Foreman J, Peterson A, Krughoff K. Buccal mucosa for use in urethral reconstruction: evolution of use over the last 30 years. Frontiers in Urology. 2023;3:1138707.
Chong WJ, Razali M, Baharin B, Nik Azis NM. Postoperative pain and morbidity at the donor site after palatal soft tissue harvesting: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):1960.
Krughoff K, Foreman J, Dvergsten T, Peterson AC. Postoperative oral care pathways are not required at the time of buccal mucosa harvest. JU Open Plus. 2023;1(11):e00058.
Frankiewicz M, Adamowicz J, Białek L, Campos-Juanatey F, Chierigo F, Cocci A, et al. Oral care pathways after oral mucosal graft harvesting: a systematic review. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition). 2025;49(1):20-34.
Patel K, Kalathia J, Krishnamoorthy V. Objective assessment of mouth opening after buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty: A prospective study. Urology Annals. 2020;12(3):259-65.
Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S, Organization WH. Sample size determination in health studies: a practical manual: World Health Organization; 1991.
Sinha RJ, Singh V, Sankhwar S, Dalela D. Donor site morbidity in oral mucosa graft urethroplasty: implications of tobacco consumption. BMC urology. 2009;9(1):15.
Botti S, Ceccato T, Cassaro M, Sanna G, Trevisiol L, Cai T. Buccal Mucosa Graft in Urological Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Review and Expert Opinion. Uro. 2025;5(3):16.
Lumen N, Campos-Juanatey F, Dimitropoulos K, Greenwell T, Martins F, Osman N. EAU guidelines on urethral strictures 2021. Arnhem: European Association of Urology. 2021.
Martin BAS, Rourke K. Closure vs non-closure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site: a randomized controlled trial: 39. Journal of Urology. 2009;181(4):15.
Farahzadi S, Buckova M, Witzleben MV, Schröder T, Lauer G, Korn P. New measurement method for long-term oral complications after harvesting buccal mucosa grafts for urethroplasty. Head & Face Medicine. 2025;21(1):48.
Zhao X, Guo Q, Zhang X, Xing Q, Ren S, Song Y, et al. The urinary and sexual outcomes of buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty versus end-to-end anastomosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sexual Medicine. 2024;12(4):qfae064.
D’hulst P, Muilwijk T, Vander Eeckt K, Van der Aa F, Joniau S. Patient‐reported outcomes after buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty for bulbar urethral strictures: results of a prospective single‐centre cohort study. BJU international. 2020;126(6):684-93.
Abdallah MMH, Maarouf AM, Kesba IEM, Taha KM. Comparison of closure versus non-closure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site outcomes in urethroplasty. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2021;85(2):4290-4.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Najeeb Ullah, Ahmad Waleed, Syed Rafiuddin Shah, Agha Muhammad Zubair, Jamal Mustaf, Mushtaq Hussain
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Readers may “Share-copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format” and “Adapt-remix, transform, and build upon the material”. The readers must give appropriate credit to the source of the material and indicate if changes were made to the material. Readers may not use the material for commercial purpose. The readers may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
