Grafts for Peyronie's disease: a comprehensive review

• Published in: Andrology (Oxford) Vol. 6; no. 1; pp. 117 - 126
• Main Authors: Garcia‐Gomez, B., Ralph, D., Levine, L., Moncada‐Iribarren, I., Djinovic, R., Albersen, M., Garcia‐Cruz, E., Romero‐Otero, J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-01-2018
• Subjects: Animals; Connective tissue diseases; grafts; Heterografts; Humans; lengthening procedure; Male; Penile Induration - surgery; Penis; Peyronie's disease; Transplants; Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male - methods; grafts; lengthening procedure; Peyronie's disease
• ISSN: 2047-2919; 2047-2927
• DOI: 10.1111/andr.12421

Summary
The difficulty implicit in combining all the characteristics that an ideal patch to treat Peyronie's disease with a lengthening procedure should have, together with the challenges of comparing results from different series, means that the ideal patch has yet to be determined. Our objective with this review was to determine whether any given patch type is preferable to the others based on the evaluation of the results of published studies. A systematic search of the literature was conducted from PubMed until December 2016. Articles reporting basic research, animal research, reviews or meta‐analyses and studies in children were eliminated. Series with patients undergoing some kind of other surgical intervention were only included if results were reported separately. Case reports and series of five patients were excluded. Five variables were selected to evaluate the results: number of patients, follow‐up period, straightening rate, shortening rate and post‐operative ED rate. For this purpose, 69 papers were included for review, and the outcomes of the use of autologous dermis, tunica vaginalis, dura mater, fascia, saphenous vein, tunica albuginea, buccal mucosa, porcine intestinal submucosa, pericardium, TachoSil® and synthetic materials were presented and analysed separately. The different series published are extremely variable and heterogeneous in terms of the number of patients included, patient selection, follow‐up periods, and in the measurement and interpretation of the outcomes analysed. Given these facts, it is not possible to draw any definitive conclusion, homogeneous, prospective studies using validated tools are required to determine which the ideal graft is.