Dorsal vs. Ventral Buccal Graft Dorsal vs. Ventral Buccal Graft
NCT ID: NCT02551783
Last Updated: 2019-11-01
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
NA
150 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2015-09-01
2019-03-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
A Study of Dorsal Versus Ventral Buccal Mucosa Graft Onlay for Bulbar Urethroplasty
NCT02634619
Liquid Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty
NCT03061344
Safety and Feasibility Study of Autologous Engineered Urethral Constructs for the Treatment of Strictures
NCT03258658
Small Intestinal Submucosa Graft for Repair of Anterior Urethral Strictures
NCT06192654
DoVe Trial: Dorsal Onlay Versus Ventral Onlay in Isolated Bulbar Urethral Strictures
NCT04551417
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Ventral buccal graft onlay first described by Morey and McAninch in 1996, involves a midline perineal incision and retraction of the bulbo-spongiosum muscle downward to expose the ventral urethral surface. The corpus spongiosum is incised longitudinally to expose the urethral lumen and the incision is extended proximal and distal to the established stricture. The buccal mucosa graft is harvested and trimmed to the length and width of the urethrotomy and the graft is sutured at the proximal and distal apices and a running suture at the lateral margins to establish a tight anastomosis. Ventral placement allows for limited urethral mobilization and easy access but there is concern about higher likelihood of diverticulum formation and development of associated complications such as post-void dribbling and ejaculatory dysfunction. In addition, many surgeons have concern about graft contraction as spread-fixating the graft is not possible.
Dorsal buccal graft onlay, first described by Barbagli in 1996, also involves a midline perineal incision. The bulbo-cavernosum and corpora cavernosum are dissected from the bulbar urethra allowing for complete mobilization of the urethra. The urethra is rotated 180 degrees to allow for dorsal access and an incision is made on the dorsal urethra proximal and distal to the stricture location. The buccal graft is harvested and trimmed to the appropriate size of the urethrotomy and spread on the overlying tunica albuginea of the corporal bodies. The right mucosal margin of the urethra is sutured to the right margin of the buccal graft and the corporal bodies. The urethra is rotated back to allow for suturing of the left mucosal margin to the left margin of the buccal graft and corporal bodies, essentially covering the entire urethral plate. Dorsal placement potentially allows for a more stable vascular bed for graft sustainability and less spongiosal bleeding, but requires a greater urethral mobilization and longer operative times. The technical challenge of graft placement in a dorsal location is much greater than placement ventrally. Potential problems with dorsal placement include damage to the male external urinary sphincter, which is dorsally located, and anastomotic leakage and perineal abscess in the immediate post-operative period.
There are multiple studies that attempt to compare the outcomes of ventral versus dorsal graft placement for bulbar urethroplasty, but these studies rely on case series and retrospective data. Andrich and Mundy reported better outcomes with dorsal buccal placement, but statistical significance was not formally established. Both Barbagli and Figler were unable to demonstrate superiority of either ventral or dorsal buccal graft placement. Currently there is no high level of definitive randomized evidence to suggest superiority of either ventral or dorsal buccal placement in terms of patient outcomes and complications. In fact, the best level of evidence is VI (small case series) and dorsal vs. ventral placement is largely dependent on individual clinical judgment and comfort level with each procedure.
One factor contributing to the inability to detect a difference between dorsal vs. ventral graft placement has been the liberal definition of success that leads to uniformly high success rates across studies (85-95%) and, hence, studies that are underpowered to detect a difference in success rates. In these studies, the definition of success has typically been "need for repeat surgery". Such a definition suffers from significant detection bias in that (1) subclinical stricture recurrences may go undetected if they are not screened for; and (2) surgeon or patient reluctance to undergo a repeat surgery may lead to false negatives. When patients are rigorously followed with endoscopic inspection of the area of surgery with cystoscopy, narrowing is often identified at a much higher rate than "need for repeat surgery". For instance, in a preliminary review of our retrospective data using surveillance cystoscopy, the investigators detected narrowing in 46% of ventral buccal patients and approximately 18% of dorsal buccal patients. This more strict definition of success and the lower success rates that follow may allow for detection of a clinically meaningful difference in the success rate with the two procedures in a reasonably-sized clinical trial.
The investigators plan a randomized comparison of dorsally-placed vs. ventrally-placed buccal mucosa graft in men undergoing buccal graft urethroplasty for bulbar urethra stricture. A collaborative multi-institutional study deriving data from the Trauma and Urologic Reconstruction Network of Surgeons, a network of twelve reconstructive urology centers in the United States, would allow the investigators to achieve the required sample size within 2-3 years. The results of this study will ultimately advance research efforts in urethral stricture management and provide substantial evidence for utilization of ventral versus dorsal buccal placement for reconstructive urologists.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft
Intervention: Procedure/Surgery: Urethroplasty with buccal graft. In this arm the graft is placed on the dorsal wall of the urethra.
Urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft
A surgery to correct urethral stricture
Ventral Buccal
Intervention: Procedure/Surgery: Urethroplasty with buccal graft. In this arm the graft is placed on the ventral wall of the urethra.
Ventral Buccal
Urethroplasty with buccal graft. In this arm the graft is placed on the ventral wall of the urethra.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft
A surgery to correct urethral stricture
Ventral Buccal
Urethroplasty with buccal graft. In this arm the graft is placed on the ventral wall of the urethra.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Strictures may extend from the mid-bulbar urethra up to the distal bulbar urethra within the scrotum, but not through the scrotum to the pendulous junction
* Subjects able to consent for themselves
Exclusion Criteria
* radiation therapy to the pelvis
* previous hypospadias repair
* lichen sclerosis unable to consent for themselves
18 Years
85 Years
MALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Iowa
OTHER
University of Kansas
OTHER
Ohio State University
OTHER
University of Utah
OTHER
Loyola University Chicago
OTHER
Lahey Clinic
OTHER
University of California, San Francisco
OTHER
University of Washington
OTHER
New York University
OTHER
University of California, San Diego
OTHER
Baylor College of Medicine
OTHER
University of Minnesota
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Minnesota Medical Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1508M77183
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.