Skip to main content

Combined Vaginal Flap + BMG Urethroplasty (Female)

Combined vaginal flap + BMG urethroplasty refers to a reconstructive strategy in which both a vaginal flap (pedicled, vascularized tissue) and a buccal mucosal graft (free graft) are used together in the same procedure to address complex female urethral strictures that cannot be adequately managed with either tissue source alone. The AUA Urethral Stricture Disease Guideline Amendment (2023) explicitly recognizes "a combination of these techniques" alongside oral mucosa grafts and vaginal flaps, with success rates of 69–95%.[1] The combined approach is not a single standardized technique — it encompasses several distinct configurations.

Concept and Rationale​

Most female urethral strictures can be managed with a single tissue source — either a vaginal flap / graft or a BMG alone. The combined approach is reserved for situations where one tissue source is insufficient due to stricture complexity, tissue quality, or anatomical constraints. The rationale is to leverage the complementary advantages of each tissue.[2][3]

  • Vaginal flap — well-vascularized pedicled tissue that maintains its own blood supply, is readily available in the same operative field, and can serve as both a urethral augmentation and a vascular bed / reinforcement layer for an overlying graft.
  • BMG — non-hair-bearing oral donor tissue that avoids diseased genital skin. It still requires a viable recipient bed and can fail or develop recurrent disease.

Clinical Configurations​

1. BMG Urethroplasty with Vaginal Flap as Vascular Reinforcement​

Ventral BMG with periurethral fascial flap coverage is a distinct configuration; the covering flaps are fascia rather than vaginal epithelial flaps. In Berdondini et al.'s ventral onlay BMG technique (n = 42), the anterior vaginal wall is incised and the periurethral fascia is raised as bilateral flaps that are then closed over the BMG, providing both vascular and mechanical support. The vaginal wall is closed as a separate layer; 98% stricture-free at 38.1 mo.[4] Although the vaginal tissue is not the primary urethral lining, it plays a critical structural role in graft survival.

2. Martius Flap–Reinforced Ventral BMG Onlay​

Önol et al. specifically described a Martius flap–reinforced ventral BMG onlay in 2 of 17 patients with prior synthetic midurethral slings, where periurethral tissue was scarred and devascularized. The BMG provides the mucosal lining; a Martius (labial fat pad) flap is interposed for the vascular bed and reinforcement.[5] See Female Ventral Onlay Urethroplasty — Martius-Reinforced Variant for the canonical operative description.

3. Sequential or Staged Vaginal Flap → BMG for Recurrent Stricture​

Blaivas et al. described a sequential approach: 9 women initially underwent vaginal flap urethroplasty with 100% success at 1 year but only 78% at 5 years. The 2 patients who recurred at 5.5 and 6 years were salvaged with BMG urethroplasty and were stricture-free at 12–15 months.[6] A combined approach across procedures rather than within a single operation, demonstrating the complementary roles of the two tissue sources in the reconstructive algorithm.

Limits of the Combination Label​

A periurethral fascial flap, a vaginal epithelial flap and a Martius labial fat-pad flap are different tissues. Fascial coverage of a BMG or Martius interposition should not be relabeled as a vaginal-flap-plus-BMG augmentation. Similarly, salvage BMG after a previous vaginal repair is a sequence of operations rather than a combined graft/flap procedure.

The AUA permits combinations of reconstructive techniques but does not validate each proposed segmental or two-surface configuration. The sources here do not establish a general step-by-step operation combining a dorsal vaginal flap with ventral BMG. Use a directly documented technique suited to the actual defect; do not infer an operative protocol from the guideline phrase alone.[1][4][5]

Outcomes​

No large series has specifically isolated the combined vaginal flap + BMG approach as a distinct cohort. Available evidence comes from series that include combined cases within larger mixed-technique cohorts.

StudyConfigurationnFollow-upSuccess
Önol 2011[5]Martius-reinforced ventral BMG2 (of 17)median 24 mo100% objective cure (entire cohort)
Blaivas 2012[6]Sequential VFU → BMG salvage2 (of 17)12–15 mo post-BMG100% (both salvage)
Berdondini 2024[4]Ventral BMG + periurethral fascia flap4238.1 mo98%
AUA 2023[1]Oral mucosa, vaginal flap, or combination (pooled)—variable69–95%

Selecting Tissue and Coverage​

Choose the urethral lining and the vascularized coverage separately. Adequate oral mucosa may reconstruct a long stricture without requiring a second lining tissue. Scarred or deficient periurethral tissue may justify additional vascularized coverage, while unhealthy vaginal tissue can limit a vaginal flap. Extent of disease, recipient viability, prior surgery and continence goals guide an individualized plan; there is no validated hierarchy assigning a named combination to each scenario.[1][2]

Comparative Evidence — BMG vs Vaginal Tissue (Single-Tissue)​

A 2025 meta-analysis (Kumar et al., 18 studies) found no significant differences between BMG and vaginal-wall graft urethroplasty in success rate (86.2% vs 89.8%), Qmax (23.3 vs 24.9 mL/s), or PVR (14.7 vs 23.0 mL), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%).[7] This supports the AUA position that graft choice should be based on tissue availability, patient characteristics, and surgeon expertise rather than inherent superiority.[1]

When vaginal flap (pedicled) is compared directly to dorsal BMG (free graft), Higuchi 2026 found dorsal-BMG 87.5% vs vaginal flap 57.1% at 12 mo — though the vaginal-flap arm had distal-only strictures while BMG included pan-urethral disease.[8] Kowalik et al. similarly found 2/5 vaginal-flap recurrences vs 0/5 dorsal BMG in a small cohort.[9]

Advantages and Limitations​

Advantages

  • Maximizes tissue availability for complex / long strictures.
  • Provides vascular support for free-graft take.
  • Allows BMG when vaginal tissue is compromised.
  • Enables reconstruction of multiple urethral surfaces.
  • Salvage option when single-tissue repair fails.

Limitations

  • Greater surgical complexity and operative time.
  • Two tissue harvest sites (oral + vaginal).
  • Limited evidence base as a distinct technique.
  • Potential donor-site morbidity at both sites.
  • Vaginal narrowing if excessive tissue harvested.
  • No standardized technique description.

Summary​

The combined vaginal flap + BMG approach is best understood as a reconstructive principle rather than a single standardized technique. It is most valuable when a single tissue source is insufficient — whether due to stricture length, tissue quality, prior surgery, or obliterative disease. The AUA 2023 guideline allows combinations alongside single-tissue approaches; pooled female urethroplasty outcomes do not establish a distinct success rate for each combination.[1] The cited reinforcement configurations are BMG augmentation with periurethral fascia or a Martius labial fat pad (Berdondini ventral onlay, 98%; Önol Martius-reinforced ventral BMG, 100% in the broader cohort).[4][5]

See Also​

References​

1. Wessells H, Morey A, Souter L, Rahimi L, Vanni A. "Urethral Stricture Disease Guideline Amendment (2023)." J Urol. 2023;210(1):64–71. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003482

2. Bouchard B, Campeau L. "Surgery for Female Urethral Stricture." Neurourol Urodyn. 2025;44(1):51–62. doi:10.1002/nau.25358

3. Faiena I, Koprowski C, Tunuguntla H. "Female Urethral Reconstruction." J Urol. 2016;195(3):557–67. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.124

4. Berdondini E, Eissa A, Margara A, et al. "Ventral Onlay Buccal Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty for Female Urethral Stricture: Medium-Term Results in a Single Surgeon Experience." Urology. 2024;193:194–200. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2024.06.045

5. Önol FF, Antar B, Köse O, Erdem MR, Önol ŞY. "Techniques and Results of Urethroplasty for Female Urethral Strictures: Our Experience With 17 Patients." Urology. 2011;77(6):1318–24. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.01.017

6. Blaivas JG, Santos JA, Tsui JF, et al. "Management of Urethral Stricture in Women." J Urol. 2012;188(5):1778–82. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.042

7. Kumar L, Thakur A, Agarwal S, et al. "Buccal Versus Vaginal Graft Urethroplasty in Female Urethral Stricture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Int Urogynecol J. 2025. doi:10.1007/s00192-025-06171-5

8. Higuchi M, Horiguchi A, Ashiya M, et al. "Vaginal Flap Urethroplasty and Dorsal Onlay Buccal Mucosal Graft Urethroplasty for Female Urethral Stricture: A Single-Center Experience." Int J Urol. 2026;33(5):e70477. doi:10.1111/iju.70477

9. Kowalik C, Stoffel JT, Zinman L, Vanni AJ, Buckley JC. "Intermediate Outcomes After Female Urethral Reconstruction: Graft vs Flap." Urology. 2014;83(5):1181–5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.052