Introduction: The use of pericardium has been expanded into different surgical modalities; however, there are scarce data regarding the feasibility of the pericardium in reconstructive urologic surgeries. We systematically reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of the pericardial tissue for reconstructive urologic surgeries. Materials and Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched online for evidence on the use of the pericardium in urologic surgeries. Through the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, 38 of 4,071 studies were identified. Results: A total of 715 patients and 139 animals underwent reconstructive urologic surgeries using the pericardium. Bladder, urethral, and renal reconstructions were successful in 100% of the human cases. The rates of dissatisfaction, glans hypoesthesia, and penile shortening were comparable between the pericardial graft surgeries and the other operations during penile straightening, but there was a trend among the patients with pericardial grafts toward having a more penile curvature at follow-up (risk ratio [RR] 2.03, 95% CI 0.90–4.61, p = 0.09; I2 = 0%). Among the animal studies, there were 4 reports of penile reconstruction, 7 studies of bladder reconstruction, and 1 study of urethroplasty. Bladder reconstruction and urethroplasty were successful in 83 and 20% of the animals, respectively. The pooled result of the stimulated intracorporeal pressure 5 V significantly favored pericardial grafts during penile reconstruction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.26–3.97, p = 0.0002; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Our systematic review demonstrates the feasibility of the pericardium, regardless of its type, in urologic surgeries. It, however, seems that urethral substitution needs further investigation. Given the lower cost, easier handling, and less immunogenicity of the pericardium, further studies are required to examine its pros and cons.

Keywords:
Pericardial tissue, Reconstructive urologic surgery, Penis, Urethra, Bladder, Kidney
1.
Presman D, Greenfield DL: Reconstruction of the perineal urethra with a free full-thickness skin graft from the prepuce. J Urol 1953; 69: 677–680.
2.
Ordorica R, Wiegand LR, Webster JC, Lockhart JL: Ureteral replacement and onlay repair with reconfigured intestinal segments. J Urol 2014; 191: 1301–1306.
3.
Weigand K, Kawan F, Schaarschmidt T, Fornara P: Ureter complications: a rare complication but which requires the highest degree of management expertise. Urol Int 2018; 101: 300–312.
4.
Jordan GH: Penile reconstruction, phallic construction, and urethral reconstruction. Urol Clin North Am 1999; 26: 1–13, vii.
5.
Kinkead TM, Borzi PA, Duffy PG, Ransley PG: Long-term followup of bladder mucosa graft for male urethral reconstruction. J Urol 1994; 151: 1056–1058.
6.
Xu YM, Qiao Y, Sa YL, Zhang J, Fu Q, Song LJ: Urethral reconstruction using colonic mucosa graft for complex strictures. J Urol 2009; 182: 1040–1043.
7.
Adamowicz J, Pokrywczynska M, Tworkiewicz J, et al: New amniotic membrane based biocomposite for future application in reconstructive urology. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0146012.
8.
Chee JY, Durai P, Wu FM, Tiong HY: Bladder repair following iatrogenic cystotomy in irradiated small capacity bladders. Singapore Med J 2015; 56:e49–e52.
9.
Leungwattanakij S, Bivalacqua TJ, Reddy S, Hellstrom WJ: Long-term follow-up on use of pericardial graft in the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res 2001; 13: 183–186.
10.
Lopes EJ, Santos TC, Jacobino M: Bovine pericardium in penile prosthesis reimplantation. Int Braz J Urol 2007; 33: 74–76.
11.
Moon SJ, Kim DH, Jo JK, et al: Bladder reconstruction using bovine pericardium in a case of enterovesical fistula. Korean J Urol 2011; 52: 150–153.
12.
Agishi T, Nakazono M, Kiraly RJ, Picha G, Nose Y: Biodegradable material for bladder reconstruction. J Biomed Mater Res 1975; 9: 119–131.
13.
Kudish HG: The use of polyvinyl sponge for experimental cystoplasty. J Urol 1957; 78: 232–235.
14.
Scott R, Mohammed R, Gorham SD, et al: The evolution of a biodegradable membrane for use in urological surgery. A summary of 109 in vivo experiments. Br J Urol 1988; 62: 26–31.
15.
Fishman IJ, Flores FN, Scott FB, Spjut HJ, Morrow B: Use of fresh placental membranes for bladder reconstruction. J Urol 1987; 138: 1291–1294.
16.
Kropp BP, Eppley BL, Prevel CD, et al: Experimental assessment of small intestinal submucosa as a bladder wall substitute. Urology 1995; 46: 396–400.
17.
Ionescu MI, Smith DR, Hasan SS, Chidambaram M, Tandon AP: Clinical durability of the pericardial xenograft valve: ten years experience with mitral replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1982; 34: 265–277.
18.
Kadioglu A, Kucukdurmaz F, Sanli O: Current status of the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease. Nat Rev Urol 2011; 8: 95–106.
19.
Khanna RK, Mokhtar E: Bovine pericardium in treating large corneal perforation secondary to alkali injury: a case report. Indian J Ophthalmol 2008; 56: 429–430.
20.
Lai PH, Chang Y, Liang HC, Chen SC, Wei HJ, Sung HW: Peritoneal regeneration induced by an acellular bovine pericardial patch in the repair of abdominal wall defects. J Surg Res 2005; 127: 85–92.
21.
Li X, Guo Y, Ziegler KR, et al: Current usage and future directions for the bovine pericardial patch. Ann Vasc Surg 2011; 25: 561–568.
22.
Parizek J, Mericka P, Spacek J, Nemecek S, Elias P, Sercl M: Xenogeneic pericardium as a dural substitute in reconstruction of suboccipital dura mater in children. J Neurosurg 1989; 70: 905–909.
23.
Portis AJ, Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, et al: Laparoscopic augmentation cystoplasty with different biodegradable grafts in an animal model. J Urol 2000; 164: 1405–1411.
24.
Sandomirsky BP, Repin NV, Mikhailova IP, Manchenko AA: Application of cryoirradiation-modified xenopericardium for building bladder wall defect. Int J Artif Organs 2016; 39: 121–127.
25.
Kajbafzadeh AM, Esfahani SA, Talab SS, Elmi A, Monajemzadeh M: In-vivo autologous bladder muscular wall regeneration: application of tissue-engineered pericardium in a model of bladder as a bioreactor. J Pediatr Urol 2011; 7: 317–323.
26.
Chun JL, McGregor A, Krishnan R, Carson CC: A comparison of dermal and cadaveric pericardial grafts in the modified Horton-Devine procedure for Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 2001; 166: 185–188.
27.
Leungwattanakij S, Bivalacqua TJ, Caulfield JJ, Hellstrom WJ: Evaluation of cadaveric pericardium in the rat for the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Urology 2000; 56: 1075–1080.
28.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Int Med 2009; 151: 264–269, w264.
29.
Zincke H, Ruckle HC: Use of exogenous material to bolster closure of the parenchymal defect following partial nephrectomy. Urology 1995; 46: 96–98.
30.
Chung E, Clendinning E, Lessard L, Brock G: Five-year follow-up of peyronie’s graft surgery: outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 594–600.
31.
Ciftci S, Ozkul B, Ustuner M, Nagihanlnan, Culha MM: A novel method for repair of testis rupture after gunshot trauma: Repair with tutoplast processed pericardium. J Pak Med Assoc 2014; 64: 1424–1427.
32.
Egydio PH: Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease: choosing the best approach to improve patient satisfaction. Asian J Androl 2008; 10: 158–166.
33.
Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE, Sansalone S: Penile length and girth restoration in severe Peyronie’s disease using circular and longitudinal grafting. BJU Int 2013; 111:E213–E219.
34.
Egydio PH, Lucon AM, Arap S: Treatment of Peyronie’s disease by incomplete circumferential incision of the tunica albuginea and plaque with bovine pericardium graft. Urology 2002; 59: 570–574.
35.
Flores S, Choi J, Alex B, Mulhall JP: Erectile dysfunction after plaque incision and grafting: Short-term assessment of incidence and predictors. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 2031–2037.
36.
Gulino G, Falabella R, Gentile G, Sasso F: Radical surgery in Peyronie’s disease. Graft comparison. Minerva Chir 2002; 57: 383–388.
37.
Gunasekaran K, Davila GW, Ghoniem GM: Giant urethral diverticulum – repair augmented with bovine pericardium collagen matrix graft and tension-free vaginal tape. J Indian Med Assoc 2011; 109: 513, 515.
38.
Lopes EJ, Kuwano AY, Guimaraes AN, Flores JP, Jacobino MA: Corporoplasty using bovine pericardium grafts in complex penile prosthesis implantation surgery. Int Braz J Urol 2009; 35: 49–53.
39.
Otero JR, Gomez BG, Polo JM, et al: Use of a lyophilized bovine pericardium graft to repair tunical defect in patients with Peyronie’s disease: experience in a clinical setting. Asian J Androl 2016.
40.
Pais VM Jr, Jiang Z, Fung LC: Foreign body reaction to bovine pericardium: a previously unreported complication of pediatric chordee repair. J Urol 2002; 168: 702–703.
41.
Palese MA, Burnett AL: Corporoplasty using pericardium allograft (tutoplast) with complex penile prosthesis surgery. Urology 2001; 58: 1049–1052.
42.
Pelosi MA 2nd, Pelosi MA 3rd, Pelekanos M: The YAMA UroPatch sling for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a pilot study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2002; 12: 27–33.
43.
Sansalone S, Garaffa G, Djinovic R, et al: Long-term results of the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease with Egydio’s technique: a European multicentre study. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 842–845.
44.
Segal RL, Cabrini MR, Bivalacqua TJ, Burnett AL: Penile straightening maneuvers employed during penile prosthesis surgery: technical options and outcomes. Int J Impot Res 2014; 26: 182–185.
45.
Silva-Garreton A, Santillan D, Chavez D, et al: Satisfaction of patients with Peyronie’s disease after plaque surgery and bovine pericardium graft. Actas Urol Esp 2016; 41: 103–108.
46.
Taylor FL, Levine LA: Surgical correction of Peyronie’s disease via tunica albuginea plication or partial plaque excision with pericardial graft: long-term follow up. J Sex Med 2008; 5: 2221–2228; discussion 2229–2230.
47.
Thiel DD, Broderick GA, Wu KJ: Inclusion cyst and graft contraction in Tutoplast human cadeveric pericardium following Peyronie’s grafting: A previously unreported complication. Int J Impot Res 2005; 17: 550–552.
48.
Uhlman MA, Brown JA: Partial nephrectomy: Novel closure technique using bovine pericardium. Can J Urol 2012; 19: 6485–6488.
49.
Usta MF, Bivalacqua TJ, Sanabria J, Koksal IT, Moparty K, Hellstrom WJ: Patient and partner satisfaction and long-term results after surgical treatment for Peyronie’s disease. Urology 2003; 62: 105–109.
50.
Zucchi A, Silvani M, Pecoraro S: Corporoplasty with small soft axial prostheses (VIRILIS I®) and bovine pericardial graft (HYDRIX®) in Peyronie’s disease. Asian J Androl 2013; 15: 275–279.
51.
Ayyildiz A, Celebi B, Akgul KT, Nuhoglu B, Caydere M, Germiyanoglu C: A comparison of free skin graft, fascia lata, alloderm, bovine pericardium and primary repair in urethrocutaneous fistulas without diversion: an experimental study. Pediatr Surg Int 2006; 22: 809–814.
52.
Kambic H, Kay R, Chen JF, Matsushita M, Harasaki H, Zilber S: Biodegradable pericardial implants for bladder augmentation: A 2.5-year study in dogs. J Urol 1992; 148: 539–543.
53.
Lara RC, Lucon AM, Arap S: Urethroplasty using a bovine pericardium graft: an experimental study using normal urethras from dogs. Braz J Med Biol 2004; 37: 327–331.
54.
Leungwattanakij S, Bivalacqua TJ, Yang DY, Hyun JS, Hellstrom WJ: Comparison of cadaveric pericardial, dermal, vein, and synthetic grafts for tunica albuginea substitution using a rat model. BJU Int 2003; 92: 119–124.
55.
Leungwattanakij S, Tiewthanom V, Hellstrom WJ: Evaluation of corporal fibrosis in cadaveric pericardium and vein grafts for tunica albuginea substitution in rats. Asian J Androl 2003; 5: 295–299.
56.
Mimura Y, Imamura T, Kinebuchi Y, Aizawa N, Ishizuka O, Nishizawa O: Rat Bladders Augmented with a Novel Bovine Pericardium-Derived Biomaterial Reconstruct Functional Tissue Structures. Low Urin Tract symptoms 2010; 2: 76–82.
57.
Nakazono M, Komai T, Koiso K, Picha G, Kiraly R, Nose Y: New approach for experimental substitution of bladder tissue. Trans Am Soc Artif Internal Organs 1973; 19: 376–381.
58.
Novick AC, Straffon RA, Koshino I, Banowsky LH, Levin H, Kambic H: Experimental bladder substitution using a biodegradable graft of natural tissue. J Biomed Mater Res 1978; 12: 125–147.
59.
Chachques JC, Vasseur B, Perier P, Balansa J, Chauvaud S, Carpentier A: A rapid method to stabilize biological materials for cardiovascular surgery. Ann New York Acad Sci 1988; 529: 184–186.
60.
Liao J, Yang L, Grashow J, Sacks MS: Molecular orientation of collagen in intact planar connective tissues under biaxial stretch. Acta Biomater 2005; 1: 45–54.
61.
Coleman S, Kerr H, Krishnamurthi V, et al: The use of bovine pericardium for complex urologic venous reconstruction. Urology 2014; 83: 495–497.
62.
D’Ambra L, Berti S, Feleppa C, Magistrelli P, Bonfante P, Falco E: Use of bovine pericardium graft for abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated fields. World J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 4: 171–176.
63.
Us MH, Sungun M, Sanioglu S, et al: A retrospective comparison of bovine pericardium and polytetrafluoroethylene patch for closure of ventricular septal defects. J Int Med Res 2004; 32: 218–221.
64.
Ghoniem GM: Allograft sling material: is it the state of the art? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2000; 11: 69–70.
65.
Levine LA, Estrada CR: Human cadaveric pericardial graft for the surgical correction of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 2003; 170: 2359–2362.
66.
Hellstrom WJ, Reddy S: Application of pericardial graft in the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 2000; 163: 1445–1447.
67.
Grabenwoger M, Sider J, Fitzal F, et al: Impact of glutaraldehyde on calcification of pericardial bioprosthetic heart valve material. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 62: 772–777.
68.
Konakci KZ, Bohle B, Blumer R, et al: Alpha-Gal on bioprostheses: xenograft immune response in cardiac surgery. Eur J Clin Invest 2005; 35: 17–23.
69.
Santoro R, Consolo F, Spiccia M, et al: Feasibility of pig and human-derived aortic valve interstitial cells seeding on fixative-free decellularized animal pericardium. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2016; 104: 345–356.
70.
Teloken C, Grazziotin T, Rhoden E, et al: Penile straightening with crural graft of the corpus cavernosum. J Urol 2000; 164: 107–108.
71.
Levine LA, Strom KH, Lux MM: Buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty for anterior urethral stricture repair: evaluation of the impact of stricture location and lichen sclerosus on surgical outcome. J Urol 2007; 178: 2011–2015.
72.
Palminteri E, Manzoni G, Berdondini E, et al: Combined dorsal plus ventral double buccal mucosa graft in bulbar urethral reconstruction. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 81–89.
73.
Shakeri S, Haghpanah A, Khezri A, et al: Application of amniotic membrane as xenograft for urethroplasty in rabbit. Int Urol Nephrol 2009; 41: 895–901.
74.
Lumen N, Vierstraete-Verlinde S, Oosterlinck W, et al: Buccal versus lingual mucosa graft in anterior urethroplasty: a prospective comparison of surgical outcome and donor site morbidity. J Urol 2016; 195: 112–117.
75.
Guo H, Sa Y, Huang J, et al: Urethral reconstruction with small intestinal submucosa seeded with oral keratinocytes and TIMP-1 siRNA transfected fibroblasts in a rabbit model. Urol Int 2016; 96: 223–230.
76.
Walter AJ, Hentz JG, Magrina JF, Cornella JL: Harvesting autologous fascia lata for pelvic reconstructive surgery: techniques and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 1354–1358; discussion 1459.
77.
Siracusano S, Ciciliato S, Lampropoulou N, Cucchi A, Visalli F, Talamini R: Porcine small intestinal submucosa implant in pubovaginal sling procedure on 48 consecutive patients: long-term results. EurJ Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 158: 350–353.
78.
Rutner AB, Levine SR, Schmaelzle JF: Processed porcine small intestine submucosa as a graft material for pubovaginal slings: durability and results. Urology 2003; 62: 805–809.
79.
Lam Van Ba O, Aharony S, Loutochin O, Corcos J: Bladder tissue engineering: a literature review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2015; 82–83: 31–37.
80.
Venn S, Mundy T: Bladder reconstruction: urothelial augmentation, trauma, fistula. Curr Opin Urol 2002; 12: 201–203.
81.
Johnston WK 3rd, Kelel KM, Hollenbeck BK, Daignault S, Wolf JS Jr: Acute integrity of closure for partial nephrectomy: comparison of 7 agents in a hypertensive porcine model. J Urol 2006; 175: 2307–2311.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.