World journal of urology · 2020
Patient-reported outcomes for typical single cheek harvesting vs atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting: a single-center analysis of more than 800 patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barbagli Guido, Bandini Marco, Balò Sofia, Montorsi Francesco, Sansalone Salvatore, Dominicis Mauro De, Butnaru Denis, Lazzeri Massimo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The optimal harvesting site for oral grafting in patients with urethral strictures remain controversial, with no study investigating morbidity on large scale. We aimed to compare typical single cheek harvesting vs atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting in terms of complications and patient-reported outcomes.
METHODS: Within 827 patients treated at our referral center with oral graft urethroplasty, we compared typical vs atypical harvesting techniques. A self-administered, semiquantitative, non-validated questionnaire assessed early (10 days) and late (4 months) postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes. A semiquantitative score was calculated according to patient responses, and it was used to assess early (6 questions) and late (13 questions) patient dissatisfaction status. Patients were defined early and/or late dissatisfied when they scored ≥ 7 and ≥ 10 at the early or late questionnaires, respectively.
RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2019, our patients predominantly received typical single cheek harvesting (89% vs 11%), with + 1.5% increase rate per year (p < 0.001). Early and late dissatisfied patients were, respectively, 170 (23%) vs 39 (44%) and 59 (8%) vs 16 (18%) in the typical vs atypical groups. Atypical harvesting was associated with higher rates of early (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] 1.44-3.75; p = 0.001) and late (OR: 2.37; 95%CI 1.22-4.42; p = 0.008) postoperative dissatisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Typical single cheek harvesting was the preferred surgical option at our center and it was associated with negligible early and late rates of complications and patient's dissatisfaction. Conversely, atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting was associated with higher complications and frequent patient dissatisfaction.
METHODS: Within 827 patients treated at our referral center with oral graft urethroplasty, we compared typical vs atypical harvesting techniques. A self-administered, semiquantitative, non-validated questionnaire assessed early (10 days) and late (4 months) postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes. A semiquantitative score was calculated according to patient responses, and it was used to assess early (6 questions) and late (13 questions) patient dissatisfaction status. Patients were defined early and/or late dissatisfied when they scored ≥ 7 and ≥ 10 at the early or late questionnaires, respectively.
RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2019, our patients predominantly received typical single cheek harvesting (89% vs 11%), with + 1.5% increase rate per year (p < 0.001). Early and late dissatisfied patients were, respectively, 170 (23%) vs 39 (44%) and 59 (8%) vs 16 (18%) in the typical vs atypical groups. Atypical harvesting was associated with higher rates of early (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] 1.44-3.75; p = 0.001) and late (OR: 2.37; 95%CI 1.22-4.42; p = 0.008) postoperative dissatisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Typical single cheek harvesting was the preferred surgical option at our center and it was associated with negligible early and late rates of complications and patient's dissatisfaction. Conversely, atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting was associated with higher complications and frequent patient dissatisfaction.