• Department of Urology, the People’s Hospital of Sichuan Province,Chengdu Sichuan,610072,P.R.China;
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective To explore the possibility of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) for reconstruction of urethral defect. 〖WTHZ〗Methods Twenty-four male rabbits weredivided into 4 groups: group A (the tubulate SIS graft for urethral repair), group B (control group, urethral tubulate defect), group C (the SIS patch graft forurethral repairs), group D (control group, urethral part defect). Then the regenerative segment was studied with histological technique by hematoxylineosin straining and immunohistological straining for α-actin after 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. The retrograde urethrography and urodynamics were used to evaluate the function of the regenerative urethra at 12 weeks after operation. Results In groups A and C, at 6 weeks after operation, the luminal surface of matrix was completely covered by urothelium, minimal SIS graft was observed in the extracellular matrix, new smooth-muscle cells was confirmed; however, more inflammatory cells were observed in the host-matrix anastomosis in group A than in group C. At 12 weeks postoperatively, the regenerative tissue was equivalent to the normal urethral tissue and SIS disappeared in group C, but some minimal SIS grafts were observed in group A. In groups B and D, urethral strictures and fibrous connective tissue were observed except 3 cases. The urethrography showed wide smooth urethral in group A and C, meawhile urodynamic evaluation didn’t demonstrat significant difference(P>0.05) in the bladder volume and the maximum urethral pressure between preoperation and postoperation in group A or group C. Conclusion SIS can be a useful material for urethral repair in rabbits, the SIS patch graft is superior to the tubulate SIS graft in urethra reconstruction. 

Citation: HUANG Xiang,LUO Jingcong,LIAO Yong,et al.. STUDY ON SMALL INTESTINAL SUBMUCOSA AS REPAIR MATERIALS IN URETHRAL RECONSTRUCTION. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2006, 20(3): 206-209. doi: Copy