Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Costa,Marnio
Data de Publicação: 2013
Outros Autores: Leslie,Bruno, Rondon,Atila, Bacelar,Herick, Mattos,Ricardo, Barbosa,Bruno, Delcelo,Rosana, Ortiz,Valdemar, Macedo Jr,Antonio
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000600884
Resumo: Purpose To compare the histological characteristics of keratinized versus non-keratinized onlay island flaps in an experimental rabbit model. Materials and Methods Sixteen male rabbits were randomly allocated into two experimental groups: keratinized and non-keratinized onlay island flaps. A defect was created in the ventral aspect of the penile urethra. In the keratinized group, a longitudinal island flap was harvested from the external prepuce and rotated to cover the urethral defect. In the non-keratinized group a transverse island flap was harvested from the inner prepuce. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Results The flaps were viable in all animals, and no deaths were associated with the procedure. Two urethrocutaneous fistulas were identified, one in each experimental group. A similar pattern of fibrosis was identified in both groups. The keratinized epithelium of the external prepuce kept its histological aspect and keratin production. Both keratinized and non-keratinized groups presented a slight decrease on the epithelial thickness, however without a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions In this short-term rabbit model, we observed that the stratified squamous keratinized epithelium from the external prepuce kept its keratin production. There was no statistical influence of the flap type on the mean epithelial thickness.
id SBU-1_a023b9c87e07002543458f2f5f641007
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382013000600884
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbitsHypospadiasSurgical FlapsForeskinKeratinsUrethra Purpose To compare the histological characteristics of keratinized versus non-keratinized onlay island flaps in an experimental rabbit model. Materials and Methods Sixteen male rabbits were randomly allocated into two experimental groups: keratinized and non-keratinized onlay island flaps. A defect was created in the ventral aspect of the penile urethra. In the keratinized group, a longitudinal island flap was harvested from the external prepuce and rotated to cover the urethral defect. In the non-keratinized group a transverse island flap was harvested from the inner prepuce. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Results The flaps were viable in all animals, and no deaths were associated with the procedure. Two urethrocutaneous fistulas were identified, one in each experimental group. A similar pattern of fibrosis was identified in both groups. The keratinized epithelium of the external prepuce kept its histological aspect and keratin production. Both keratinized and non-keratinized groups presented a slight decrease on the epithelial thickness, however without a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions In this short-term rabbit model, we observed that the stratified squamous keratinized epithelium from the external prepuce kept its keratin production. There was no statistical influence of the flap type on the mean epithelial thickness. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2013-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000600884International braz j urol v.39 n.6 2013reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.06.16info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCosta,MarnioLeslie,BrunoRondon,AtilaBacelar,HerickMattos,RicardoBarbosa,BrunoDelcelo,RosanaOrtiz,ValdemarMacedo Jr,Antonioeng2014-01-28T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382013000600884Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2014-01-28T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
title Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
spellingShingle Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
Costa,Marnio
Hypospadias
Surgical Flaps
Foreskin
Keratins
Urethra
title_short Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
title_full Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
title_fullStr Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
title_full_unstemmed Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
title_sort Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
author Costa,Marnio
author_facet Costa,Marnio
Leslie,Bruno
Rondon,Atila
Bacelar,Herick
Mattos,Ricardo
Barbosa,Bruno
Delcelo,Rosana
Ortiz,Valdemar
Macedo Jr,Antonio
author_role author
author2 Leslie,Bruno
Rondon,Atila
Bacelar,Herick
Mattos,Ricardo
Barbosa,Bruno
Delcelo,Rosana
Ortiz,Valdemar
Macedo Jr,Antonio
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Costa,Marnio
Leslie,Bruno
Rondon,Atila
Bacelar,Herick
Mattos,Ricardo
Barbosa,Bruno
Delcelo,Rosana
Ortiz,Valdemar
Macedo Jr,Antonio
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Hypospadias
Surgical Flaps
Foreskin
Keratins
Urethra
topic Hypospadias
Surgical Flaps
Foreskin
Keratins
Urethra
description Purpose To compare the histological characteristics of keratinized versus non-keratinized onlay island flaps in an experimental rabbit model. Materials and Methods Sixteen male rabbits were randomly allocated into two experimental groups: keratinized and non-keratinized onlay island flaps. A defect was created in the ventral aspect of the penile urethra. In the keratinized group, a longitudinal island flap was harvested from the external prepuce and rotated to cover the urethral defect. In the non-keratinized group a transverse island flap was harvested from the inner prepuce. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Results The flaps were viable in all animals, and no deaths were associated with the procedure. Two urethrocutaneous fistulas were identified, one in each experimental group. A similar pattern of fibrosis was identified in both groups. The keratinized epithelium of the external prepuce kept its histological aspect and keratin production. Both keratinized and non-keratinized groups presented a slight decrease on the epithelial thickness, however without a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions In this short-term rabbit model, we observed that the stratified squamous keratinized epithelium from the external prepuce kept its keratin production. There was no statistical influence of the flap type on the mean epithelial thickness.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000600884
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382013000600884
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.06.16
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.39 n.6 2013
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318073579044864