الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 138 |  |  |
| | | from | 138 | | |
Abstract
To summarize, we found that in penile urethroplasty the success rate in the buccal mucosal graft group was slightly higher than local penile flap group which was statistically insignificant. Our successful treatment outcome was defined as peak flow rate >15 and no postoperative requirement of any kind of instrumentation or further treatment after urethroplasty. As regard the complications, though the wound infection rates were similar in both groups, yet the remaining significant complications were only encountered in the LPF group (one urinary fistula and one ventral chordee). To be honest, our work had some limitations: a relatively small sample size, however, this study was a prospective randomized study which is not the case in most priorly published similar studies. Another limitation is the relatively short follow up period that we will try to cover in future studies.
Conclusion:
On an intermediate term follow up, dorsolateral onlay buccal mucosal graft and ventral onlay penile skin flap provide similar success rates in penile urethroplasty, with essentially comparable post-operative morbidity. However, reconstructive urologists should gain familiarity and try to get enough experience in variable techniques of urethral reconstruction, as the need for one technique may vary according to different circumstances.
Further studies with higher sample sizes & longer term follow-up periods may be required to determine subtle differences between both techniques.