Onlay Repair Technique for the Management of Ureteral Strictures: A Comprehensive Review

Table 1

Clinical series reports of ureteroplasty using oral mucosa grafts.

Authors and year	Patients ()	Type of the graft	Length of repair (cm)	Follow-up (months)	Donor site complications	Recipient site complications	Success rate^c (%)
Naude (1999) [18]	4	BMG (open onlay 3; tube 1)	4^a	3-72	Not determined	None	100
Shailesh et al. (2003) [60]	5	BMG (open onlay)	5.5-9.0	18-42	Not determined	None	100
Kroepfl et al. (2009) [23]	7	BMG (open onlay)	3-11	10-85	Not determined	Restenosis in 2 (one occurred 39 months later; another 17 months)	71.4 (5/7)
Badawy et al. (2010) [38]	5	BMG (open onlay)	3.5-5.0	14-39	Not determined	None	100
Pandey et al. (2014) [61]	3	BMG (open onlay)	4-6	26-50	Not determined	None	100
Zhao et al. (2015) [24]	4	BMG (robotic onlay, anterior in 2, posterior in 2)	1.5-6.0	10.7-18.6	Not determined	None	100
Li et al. (2016) [30]	1^b	LMG (laparoscopic onlay)	4	9	None	None	100
Tsaturyan et al. (2016) [62]	5	BMG (open onlay)	2.5-5.0	26-52	Not determined	None	100
Lee et al. (2017) [63]	12	BMG (robotic onlay)	2-5	4-30	Not determined	Stricture recurrence in 2	83.3 (10/12)
Ahn et al. (2017) [64]	3	BMG (robotic onlay)	2.5-6	5-26	None	None	100
Zhao et al. (2018) [25]	19	BMG (robotic onlay, ventrally in 15, dorsally in 4)	2-8	13-44	Not determined	Restenosis in 2 (one occurred 1 year later, another 6 weeks)	89.4 (17/19)
Hefermehl et al. (2020) [41]	4	BMG (open onlay)	3-5	12-14	Difficulties to whistle in 1	None	100

^aAuthors only mentioned the reconstructed length of tube graft; ^b first report of ureteroplasty using lingual mucosa graft; ^csuccess was defined as patent drainage and free of stricture recurrence.