Skip to main content

Genitourinary Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (Penile / Total Penis-Scrotum-Lower-Abdominal-Wall VCA)

Penile VCA is the transplantation of a complete penile allograft — corpora cavernosa, corpus spongiosum, urethra, neurovascular bundles, and skin envelope — from a deceased donor to a recipient with severe penile tissue loss. The Johns Hopkins 2018 total penis-scrotum-lower-abdominal-wall VCA (Redett, NEJM 2019) is the most extensive genitourinary VCA ever performed, incorporating the entire external genitalia plus a segment of the lower abdominal wall as a single composite allograft.[1][2] Globally, only 5 penile transplants have been performed; 2 required explantation, 3 remain intact with encouraging long-term outcomes.[3][4]

This page consolidates the penile and total penis-scrotum-lower-abdominal-wall variants. For broader scrotal context see Scrotal Reconstruction Techniques; for autologous penile alternatives see Penile Reconstruction and the Radial Forearm Free Flap.

Global Case Experience​

#YearCenterIndicationScopeOutcome
12006Guangzhou (China)Traumatic amputationPenisExplanted POD 14 — psychological rejection by patient and wife[1][2]
22014Cape Town (Stellenbosch/Tygerberg)Ritual circumcision gangrenePenisSuccessful (> 24 mo) — spontaneous erections at 3 wk; intercourse at 5 wk; partner pregnancy; IIEF satisfaction 8/10; Qmax 16.3 mL/s[6]
32016MGH (Boston, USA)Penile SCCPenis + skin pedicleSuccessful (> 7 mo reported) — first US transplant; steroid-resistant Banff III rejection POD 28–32, ATG rescue; partial sensation and tumescence at 7 mo[7]
42018Johns Hopkins (USA)IED blast injury (military)Total penis + scrotum + lower abdominal wallSuccessful (~1 yr+) — most extensive GUVCA; near-normal erectile function, orgasm, standing urination; bone-marrow-based immunomodulation → tacrolimus monotherapy[1][4]
5—Undisclosed——Explanted — limited published details; noncompliance suspected[4]

The Johns Hopkins Total Penis-Scrotum-Lower-Abdominal-Wall VCA​

Recipient. Young military servicemember with IED injuries: total loss of penis beyond a small stump, absence of scrotal tissue and testes, substantial lower-abdominal-wall defects — not amenable to conventional autologous reconstruction.[1]

Allograft composition.

  • Complete penile shaft (corpora cavernosa, corpus spongiosum, urethra).
  • Bilateral scrotal skin and dartos.
  • Lower abdominal wall tissue.
  • Preserved neurovascular structures: dorsal penile arteries, veins, nerves; bilateral femoral and external pudendal arteries; saphenous veins.

Vascular strategy. Deep inferior epigastric arteries revascularized the dorsal penile circulation; external pudendal arteries perfused the proximal scrotal and abdominal-wall components. This reduced the number of microsurgical anastomoses while ensuring reliable perfusion of all components.[1]

Immunosuppression. Donor bone-marrow-based immunomodulation with transition to tacrolimus monotherapy; stable leukocyte counts and renal function at 3 years on single-agent maintenance.[4]

Functional outcomes (~1 yr). Near-normal erectile function; orgasmic capability; restored standing urination; dramatic QoL / self-image improvement; continuous nerve regeneration documented at 3 years post-transplant.[1][4]

Indications and Patient Selection​

Indications.[5][8][9]

  • Traumatic penile loss — IED / blast / industrial / animal attack.
  • Ritual circumcision complications (leading cause of penile loss in young men in South Africa).
  • Penile cancer after total penectomy.
  • Severe congenital penile agenesis / ambiguous genitalia (expanding indication).
  • Trans-masculine gender affirmation — anatomical feasibility demonstrated, investigational.[10]

Baltimore Criteria (Lopez 2023, Nat Rev Urol).[4]

  • Penile defect not amenable to / unacceptable after conventional reconstruction.
  • Adequate psychological stability and motivation.
  • Absence of active psychiatric disease or substance abuse.
  • Demonstrated medication-compliance capacity.
  • Adequate social support.
  • Informed consent for lifelong immunosuppression, rejection, infection, malignancy, graft-loss risk.
  • Multidisciplinary evaluation (surgery, medicine, psychiatry, social work, nurse coordinators).

Updated 2023 recommendations. Counsel on long-term nerve-regeneration improvement and tacrolimus-monotherapy feasibility; replace one-time STI surveillance with longitudinal partnership; proactively address donor-recipient color mismatch ethics.[4]

Surgical Technique​

Donor procurement​

  • Identify dorsal penile arteries, deep dorsal vein, dorsal nerves, cavernosal arteries, external pudendal vessels.
  • En-bloc harvest with maximal proximal corporal and urethral length.
  • For the Johns Hopkins extended allograft — scrotal skin, abdominal-wall tissue, bilateral femoral / external pudendal vessels.[1]
  • Cosmetic donor reconstruction with an abdominal skin-flap phallus is crucial for family consent.[6]
  • Cold preservation with standard organ-preservation solutions.

Recipient preparation​

  • Excise scar tissue from the penile stump.
  • Mobilize recipient dorsal arteries, inferior epigastrics, external pudendal arteries.
  • Identify dorsal nerves for coaptation.
  • Prepare urethral stump.[6][7]

Vascular anastomoses — perfusion territories​

Tuffaha 2014 cadaveric study — each system has distinct perfusion territory:[12]

ArteryTerritory
Dorsal penileGlans and corpus spongiosum
CavernosalCorpora cavernosa (minimal communication to skin)
External pudendalShaft and surrounding skin
Deep inferior epigastricRecipient option when native dorsal arteries are obliterated (Cape Town, Johns Hopkins)[1][6]

Venous options. Deep dorsal vein (GEM coupler ring); saphenous veins (Johns Hopkins extended allograft).[1][6]

Modified surgical model (Ruiz 2023, 12 cadavers). Anterior pubic osteotomy accesses the root of the cavernous bodies and the Alcock ducts, enabling internal pudendal anastomoses more proximally, limiting the number of microsurgical anastomoses while vascularizing the entire shaft.[11]

Neural coaptation​

Bilateral dorsal nerve epineural repair (9-0 nylon, loupes or microscope). Regeneration is progressive — continuous at 3 years post-transplant (Johns Hopkins).[4][6]

Urethral anastomosis​

Spatulated end-to-end with interrupted 3-0 polyglycolic acid. Catheter × ~3 wk; urethrogram before removal. All retained grafts achieved spontaneous voiding through the transplanted urethra.[5][6][7]

Corporal anastomosis​

Tunica albuginea sutured watertight with interrupted 2-0 polyglycolic acid.[6]

Immunosuppression​

No standardized protocol — Knoedler 2026 SR provides comprehensive overview across VCA types.[13]

Induction.

  • ATG — Cape Town 100 mg/d × 10 d; MGH; Johns Hopkins.[6][7]
  • Donor bone-marrow infusion — Johns Hopkins immunomodulatory protocol enabling tacrolimus monotherapy.[4]

Maintenance.

  • Standard triple therapy — tacrolimus + MMF + prednisone (Cape Town, MGH).[6][7]
  • Tacrolimus monotherapy (Johns Hopkins) — stable leukocyte counts and renal function at 3 yr after bone-marrow protocol.[4]
  • Tacrolimus targets initially 10–15 ng/mL; adjust by clinical response / renal function.[6]

Rejection across VCA types (Knoedler 2026). Acute rejection in 60% within year 1; peak weeks 1–2, 5–12, 13–52; Banff I 36% / II 54% / III 37% / IV 0.7%; skin lesions 32%, edema 24%, erythema 21%; treatment — corticosteroids 72%, tacrolimus 36%, ATG 14%, alemtuzumab 8.1%, rituximab 4.4%.[13]

Penile-specific. MGH — Banff III rescued with ATG; Cape Town — no clinical rejection at 24 mo; Johns Hopkins — no reported rejection (bone-marrow protocol may confer tolerance).[4][6][7]

Erectile-tissue physiology. Sopko 2017 ex-vivo model — rejection impairs cavernous tissue physiology; cyclosporine A prevents rejection but does not improve relaxation and may hinder corporal physiology; tacrolimus (FK506) appears better suited to penile transplantation.[14]

Prophylaxis. TMP-SMX for Pneumocystis × 1 yr; isoniazid for TB × 1 yr in endemic settings.[6]

Functional Outcomes​

DomainResult
UrinarySpontaneous voiding through transplanted urethra in all retained grafts; Cape Town Qmax 16.3 mL/s at 24 mo; Johns Hopkins restored standing urination.[1][5][6]
ErectileCape Town — spontaneous erections at 3 wk, intercourse at 5 wk, IIEF satisfaction 8/10 at 24 mo. MGH — tumescence at 7 mo. Johns Hopkins — near-normal at ~1 yr. Penile rehab with tadalafil 5 mg daily × 3 mo (Cape Town).[1][6][7]
Sensation / nerve regenerationCape Town — normal orgasm and ejaculation at 24 mo. MGH — partial sensation at 7 mo. Johns Hopkins — continuous regeneration at 3 yr.[4][6][7]
ReproductiveCape Town — partner conceived naturally at 6 mo (stillbirth at term in another province) — demonstrates feasible natural fertility.[6]
QoLCape Town SF-36v2 MCS 25 → 57 (6 mo) → 46 (24 mo); PCS 37 → 60 → 59. MGH — improved health satisfaction, self-image, optimism. Johns Hopkins — dramatic QoL / self-image improvement.[1][6][7]

Complications​

Vascular — reported in all 5 cases.[11]

  • Cape Town — arterial thrombus revision at 8 h; infected hematoma + proximal skin necrosis POD 6.[6]
  • MGH — hematoma evacuation POD 2; eschar debridement POD 13.[7]
  • Johns Hopkins — specific vascular complications not detailed in NEJM correspondence.[1]

Rejection. MGH steroid-resistant Banff III rescued with ATG; others as above.[7]

Immunosuppression-related. Cape Town — AKI at 7 mo (reversed by tacrolimus dose reduction); acne; HTN; phaeohyphomycosis (Alternaria) at 8 mo.[6]

Psychological rejection. Guangzhou explantation POD 14 — patient and partner could not tolerate the transplant — unique complication of genital VCA.[3][5]

Graft loss. 2/5 (40%) — psychological rejection (China) and likely noncompliance (undisclosed).[4]

Ethical Considerations[15][16][17]​

  • Risk-benefit — VCA is not life-saving; lifelong immunosuppression with infection / malignancy / renal-toxicity / metabolic risk must be weighed against QoL gain.
  • Donor consent and family ethics — cosmetic donor reconstruction (abdominal-flap phallus) is crucial for consent.[6]
  • Donor-recipient color mismatch — visibly genital tissue makes mismatch more psychologically loaded than other VCA types.[4]
  • STI risk under immunosuppression — longitudinal partnership preferred over one-time surveillance.[4]
  • Compliance — noncompliance likely contributed to ≥ 1 graft loss; multidisciplinary partnership essential.[4]
  • Gender affirmation. Cristofari 2023 — anatomical feasibility of one-stage GUVCA for trans men including penis + scrotum + inferior bladder patch with urinary sphincter + prostate + seminal vesicles + pubic-bone strip — raises additional ethical questions about expanding indications.[10]

Caplan 2017 — guidelines must cover tissue donation, consent, subject selection, surgical-team qualifications, and management of failure / dissatisfaction; penile transplants should not be undertaken until guidelines are established and disseminated.[17]

Preclinical Models​

  • Rat penile transplant model (Fidder 2019). Syngeneic and allogeneic heterotopic transplant in Lewis / Brown Norway rats; rejection in a 4-stage progression with epidermal sloughing at POD 7 and full rejection POD 14–16; distal-to-proximal pattern (skin / urethral lining first → tunica albuginea / corpora). Novel 4-grade rejection classification analogous to 2007 Banff Criteria.[18]
  • Ex-vivo human (Sopko 2017). Mixed lymphocyte reaction with human cavernous tissue; tacrolimus superior to cyclosporine for preserving corporal physiology.[14]
  • Cadaveric feasibility. Tuffaha 2014 — distinct dorsal / cavernosal / external-pudendal perfusion territories. Ruiz 2023 — anterior-pubic-osteotomy approach. Cristofari 2023 — GUVCA-for-gender-affirmation feasibility in 20 cadavers + 5 simulated transplants.[10][11][12]

VCA vs Autologous Phalloplasty​

FeatureAutologous (RFFF / ALT)Penile VCA
Tissue typeNon-genital (forearm / thigh)True penile tissue
Erection mechanismRequires prosthesisNatural spontaneous erections
SensationPartial (nerve coaptation)Progressive; orgasm achievable
Urethral functionHigh stricture / fistula rate (30–60%)Spontaneous voiding; low complication
FertilityNot possibleNatural conception demonstrated
CosmesisVariable; tube-in-tubeNear-normal penile appearance
ImmunosuppressionNoneLifelong
Donor-site morbiditySignificant (forearm / thigh)None (deceased donor)
Reoperation rateHigh (prosthesis complications)Low (vascular revision)
AvailabilityWideExtremely limited (5 cases globally)
[1][2][4][5][6][8][13][19]

Future Directions​

  • Expanding indications — congenital defects, oncologic defects, gender affirmation.[9][10]
  • Tolerance induction — bone-marrow-based protocols enabling tacrolimus monotherapy with stable renal function at 3 yr (Johns Hopkins).[4]
  • Standardization — OPTN began VCA oversight in the US in 2014; 62 VCAs in OPTN as of 2021; the field lacks standardized protocols for surgical technique, immunosuppression, rejection monitoring, and outcomes.[20]
  • Anterior pubic osteotomy approach for more reliable internal-pudendal anastomoses.[11]
  • Reimbursement and institutional support for transition from research to standard of care.[19][21]

See Also​

References​

1. Redett RJ, Etra JW, Brandacher G, et al. Total penis, scrotum, and lower abdominal wall transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(19):1876–1878. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1907956

2. Hawksworth DJ, Cooney DS, Burnett AL, Bivalacqua TJ, Redett RJ. Penile allotransplantation: pushing the limits. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(4):533–535. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2019.08.004

3. Lake IV, Girard AO, Lopez CD, et al. Penile transplantation: lessons learned and technical considerations. J Urol. 2022;207(5):960–968. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002504

4. Lopez CD, Girard AO, Lake IV, et al. Lessons learned from the first 15 years of penile transplantation and updates to the Baltimore Criteria. Nat Rev Urol. 2023;20(5):294–307. doi:10.1038/s41585-022-00699-7

5. Sopko NA, Tuffaha SH, Lough D, et al. Penile allotransplantation for complex genitourinary reconstruction. J Urol. 2017;198(2):274–280. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.134

6. van der Merwe A, Graewe F, Zühlke A, et al. Penile allotransplantation for penis amputation following ritual circumcision: a case report with 24 months of follow-up. Lancet. 2017;390(10099):1038–1047. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31807-X

7. Cetrulo CL, Li K, Salinas HM, et al. Penis transplantation: first US experience. Ann Surg. 2018;267(5):983–988. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002241

8. Girard AO, Lake IV, Lopez CD, et al. Vascularized composite allotransplantation of the penis: current status and future perspectives. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(4):383–391. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00481-0

9. Lopez CD, Girard AO, Redett RJ. Expanding indications for urogenital transplantation: congenital and oncologic defects, and gender affirmation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2023;28(6):425–430. doi:10.1097/MOT.0000000000001111

10. Cristofari S, Ramelli E, Phan YC, et al. Genitourinary vascularized composite allotransplantation for gender affirmation in trans men: an anatomical feasibility study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;83:117–125. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.04.002

11. Ruiz F, Cetrulo CL, Timsit MO, Lantieri L, Lellouch AG. Modified surgical model for genitourinary vascularized composite allotransplantations: an anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152(3):468e–471e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010263

12. Tuffaha SH, Sacks JM, Shores JT, et al. Using the dorsal, cavernosal, and external pudendal arteries for penile transplantation: technical considerations and perfusion territories. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(1):111e–119e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000277

13. Knoedler L, Niederegger T, Schaschinger T, et al. A systematic review of treatment strategies to combat acute and chronic rejection episodes in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Front Immunol. 2026;17:1733221. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2026.1733221

14. Sopko NA, Matsui H, Lough DM, et al. Ex vivo model of human penile transplantation and rejection: implications for erectile tissue physiology. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):584–593. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.006

15. Benjamin H, Celine A, Mounia SM, Barbara H, Jean Paul M. Ethical stakes of penile transplantation: a literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(5):1529–1536. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.116

16. Caplan AL, Parent B, Kahn J, et al. Emerging ethical challenges raised by the evolution of vascularized composite allotransplantation. Transplantation. 2019;103(6):1240–1246. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000002478

17. Caplan AL, Kimberly LL, Parent B, Sosin M, Rodriguez ED. The ethics of penile transplantation: preliminary recommendations. Transplantation. 2017;101(6):1200–1205. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000001352

18. Fidder SAJ, Furtmüller GJ, Simons B, et al. Characterization of clinical and histological rejection of male genital tissues using a novel microsurgical rat penile transplantation model. Transplantation. 2019;103(11):2245–2254. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000002812

19. Klimitz FJ, Brown S, Kauke-Navarro M, Pomahac B. The current status of vascularized composite allotransplantation: from experimental frontier to reconstructive reality. Clin Plast Surg. 2026;53(1):13–22. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2025.08.002

20. Lewis HC, Cendales LC. Vascularized composite allotransplantation in the United States: a retrospective analysis of the OPTN database after 5 years of the final rule. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(1):291–296. doi:10.1111/ajt.16086

21. Kaufman CL, Bhutiani N, Ramirez A, et al. Current status of vascularized composite allotransplantation. Am Surg. 2019;85(6):631–637.