Keratinized versus non-keratinized preputial flap onlay urethroplasty: does it make any difference in the histological analysis? An experimental study in rabbits
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2013 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
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 |