title: Allograft materials in phalloplasty: a comparative analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Allograft use has increased recently with the rising use of allograft materials in breast surgery. There are few data that compare the performance of the various allograft materials in this application, despite marketing efforts by the manufacturers to present one allograft material as superior to another. Phalloplasty is a procedure that uses allografts for penis girth augmentation. Preparation of these grafts differs with each manufacturer. We report our experience with 3 different types of allografts for this procedure. This allows for the comparison of these materials in their performance with a single model.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-seven patients who underwent penis girth enhancement with allograft material were reviewed. All patients underwent circumferential grafting to the shaft of the penis at the level of Buck's fascia. Graft materials included AlloDerm (n = 9), Belladerm (n = 20), and Repriza (n = 21). Charts were reviewed for material type, presence and type of infection, wound exposure, and graft loss with attention to the type of allograft material that was used.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Follow-up ranged from 1 to 120 months with an average of 11.25 months. Infection, defined as an open wound with graft exposure, occurred in 20 (42%) of 47 patients. Of these, graft exposure only occurred in 17 (36%) patients, whereas 3 (6%) patients sustained total graft loss. Graft exposure or loss occurred in 3 patients who had AlloDerm, 9 patients with Belladerm, and 8 patients with Repriza. No patients with AlloDerm sustained graft loss, whereas 2 patients with Belladerm and 1 patient with Repriza sustained graft loss. There were no statistical differences among these graft types with regard to infection or graft loss.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Three different brands of allograft material were used in 1 surgical procedure and followed up for their performance with regard to exposure and infection. In this model, there is no difference in the rate of infection in these materials despite their different methods of preparation. Implications of this fact are discussed in the approach surgeons should consider when using these materials.
authors.affiliation: Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. doctor@marksolomonmd.com
authors.forename: Mark P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Solomon
authors.forename: Caroline
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Komlo
authors.forename: Molly
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Defrain
mesh_terms: D062088:Acellular Dermis; D064591:Allografts; D003094:Collagen; D003357:Cosmetic Techniques; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006085:Graft Survival; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010413:Penis / Q000601:surgery*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D013521:Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: C440568:Alloderm; D003094:Collagen