Research Article| Volume 134, ISSUE 6, P677-686, December 2022

Oral adverse outcomes associated with the buccal mucosa graft for urethroplasty

Published:March 28, 2022DOI:


      The buccal mucosa graft (BMG) is the standard graft for reconstructive urology, but management of the donor site remains under debate. The authors compared postoperative oral adverse outcomes between management methods (closure, nonclosure, or xenograft-assisted closure).

      Study Design

      A retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling patients treated at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. The patients had a history of urethroplasty using a unilateral BMG, and the primary outcome variables were postoperative oral adverse outcomes, defined as subjective changes in mouth opening, smile, chewing, speech, intraoral bleeding, paresthesia, trismus, and infection. Multivariate and regression analyses were performed.


      The sample was composed of 137 patients (95% male; mean age, 48 years). The mean surface areas of the BMG for closure, nonclosure, and xenograft were 1059, 1178, and 1228 mm2, respectively. Thirty-four patients completed the survey (7 closure, 17 nonclosure, and 10 xenograft). Multiple linear regression showed a significant difference between the 3 groups with respect to patient-reported chewing ability and trismus favoring xenograft at larger graft sizes (P < .01).


      Xenograft-assisted closure may reduce long-term oral adverse outcomes associated with trismus and subjective changes in chewing, mouth opening, speaking, and smiling with larger grafts. In addition, limited postoperative patient education for oral rehabilitation exercises was noted.


      BMG (Buccal Mucosa Graft)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Wong E
        • Fernando A
        • Alhasso A
        • Stewart L.
        Does closure of the buccal mucosal graft bed matter? Results from a randomized controlled trial.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 1223-1227
        • Kroepfl D
        • Loewen H
        • Klevecka V
        • Musch M.
        Treatment of long ureteric strictures with buccal mucosal grafts.
        BJU Int. 2010; 105: 1452-1455
        • Barbagli G
        • Kulkarni SB
        • Fossati N
        • et al.
        Long-term followup and deterioration rate of anterior substitution urethroplasty.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 808-813
        • Fu Q
        • Zhang Y
        • Zhang J
        • Xie H
        • Sa YL
        • Jin S
        Substitution urethroplasty for anterior urethral stricture repair: comparison between lingual mucosa graft and pedicled skin flap.
        Scand J Urol. 2017; 51: 479-483
        • Liu JS
        • Han J
        • Said M
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes of urethroplasty with abdominal wall skin grafts.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 258-262
        • Palminteri E
        • Berdondini E
        • Fusco F
        • De Nunzio C
        • Salonia A.
        Long-term results of small intestinal submucosa graft in bulbar urethral reconstruction.
        Urology. 2012; 79: 695-701
        • Kinkead TM
        • Borzi PA
        • Duffy PG
        • Ransley PG.
        Long-term followup of bladder mucosa graft for male urethral reconstruction.
        J Urol. 1994; 151: 1056-1058
        • Humby G
        • Higgins TT.
        A one-stage operation for hypospadias.
        Br J Surg. 1941; 29: 84-92
        • Bhargava S
        • Chapple CR.
        Buccal mucosal urethroplasty: is it the new gold standard?.
        BJU Int. 2004; 93: 1191-1193
        • Wessells H
        • McAninch JW.
        Current controversies in anterior urethral stricture repair: free-graft versus pedicled skin-flap reconstruction.
        World J Urol. 1998; 16: 175-180
        • Horiguchi A.
        Substitution urethroplasty using oral mucosa graft for male anterior urethral stricture disease: current topics and reviews.
        Int J Urol. 2017; 24: 493-503
        • Levy ME
        • Elliott SP.
        Graft use in bulbar urethroplasty.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2017; 44: 39-47
        • Baskin LS
        • Duckett JW.
        Buccal mucosa grafts in hypospadias surgery.
        Br J Urol. 1995; 76: 23-30
        • Rourke K
        • McKinny S
        • St Martin B.
        Effect of wound closure on buccal mucosal graft harvest site morbidity: results of a randomized prospective trial.
        Urology. 2012; 79: 443-447
        • Soave A
        • Dahlem R
        • Pinnschmidt HO
        • et al.
        Substitution urethroplasty with closure versus nonclosure of the buccal mucosa graft harvest site: a randomized controlled trial with a detailed analysis of oral pain and morbidity.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 910-922
        • Dublin N
        • Stewart LH.
        Oral complications after buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty.
        BJU Int. 2004; 94: 867-869
        • Jamal JE
        • Kellner DS
        • Fracchia JA
        • Armenakas NA.
        A randomized prospective trial of primary versus AlloDerm closure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site for substitution urethroplasty.
        Urology. 2010; 75: 695-700
        • Wood DN
        • Allen SE
        • Andrich DE
        • Greenwell TJ
        • Mundy AR.
        The morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative pain.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 580-583
        • Muruganandam K
        • Dubey D
        • Gulia AK
        • et al.
        Closure versus nonclosure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site: a prospective randomized study on post operative morbidity.
        Indian J Urol. 2009; 25: 72-75
        • Dijkstra PU
        • Huisman PM
        • Roodenburg JL.
        Criteria for trismus in head and neck oncology.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 35: 337-342
        • Epstein JB
        • Robertson M
        • Emerton S
        • Phillips N
        • Stevenson-Moore P.
        Quality of life and oral function in patients treated with radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.
        Head Neck. 2001; 23: 389-398
        • Louise Kent M
        • Brennan MT
        • Noll JL
        • et al.
        Radiation-induced trismus in head and neck cancer patients.
        Support Care Cancer. 2008; 16: 305-309
        • Buchbinder D
        • Currivan RB
        • Kaplan AJ
        • Urken ML.
        Mobilization regimens for the prevention of jaw hypomobility in the radiated patient: a comparison of three techniques.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 51: 863-867
        • Bensadoun RJ
        • Riesenbeck D
        • Lockhart PB
        • et al.
        A systematic review of trismus induced by cancer therapies in head and neck cancer patients.
        Support Care Cancer. 2010; 18: 1033-1038
        • Kamstra JI
        • Roodenburg JL
        • Beurskens CH
        • Reintsema H
        • Dijkstra PU.
        TheraBite exercises to treat trismus secondary to head and neck cancer.
        Support Care Cancer. 2013; 21: 951-957
        • Balbuena L
        • Stambaugh KI
        • Ramirez SG
        • Yeager C.
        Effects of topical oral antiseptic rinses on bacterial counts of saliva in healthy human subjects.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998; 118: 625-629
      1. Oral Cancer Foundation. Trismus. Available at: Accessed April 1, 2021.