Skip to main content

Penile Grafting With Tissue Substitutes

Tissue substitutes in penile skin grafting are acellular dermal matrices (ADMs), extracellular-matrix (ECM) scaffolds, tissue expanders, and biological wound dressings that augment or replace traditional autologous skin grafting. The two products with the most penile-specific evidence are Integra® (bilayer collagen-GAG dermal regeneration template) — typically used in a staged protocol with NPWT and delayed STSG — and Matriderm® (collagen-elastin matrix) — used in a single-stage protocol with simultaneous STSG, with the largest penile series to date (Crane 2026, n = 36, 92.1% graft uptake).[1][2]

For the cross-cutting graft technique itself (STSG vs FTSG, donor-site selection, harvest, bolster fixation), see Penile Skin Grafting. For the integrated decision framework, see Penile Reconstruction.

Why Tissue Substitutes Are Needed​

Penile shaft skin is thin, non-hair-bearing, freely-mobile over Buck's fascia, and must elongate substantially during erection. STSG alone applied directly to Buck's fascia provides epidermal coverage without a dermal layer, with predictable long-term consequences:[1][7][6]

  • Graft contracture — penile shortening, curvature, painful erection
  • Poor elasticity — graft cannot stretch with erection
  • Thin, fragile skin prone to friction breakdown
  • Hypertrophic scarring

Tissue substitutes provide a neodermis — a scaffold colonized by host fibroblasts and vascularized to create a true dermal layer beneath the graft.[1][8]

Category 1 — Acellular Dermal Matrices​

1A. Integra® bilayer matrix (staged)​

Bovine type-I collagen / chondroitin-6-sulfate matrix under a temporary silicone epidermal layer.

Mechanism (Moiemen histologic study):[8]

  1. Imbibition → 2. Fibroblast migration → 3. Neovascularization → 4. Remodeling / maturation
  • Full vascularization of neodermis at ~ 4 weeks
  • New collagen histologically indistinguishable from normal dermal collagen
  • No adnexa, nerve endings, or elastic fibers regenerated

Penile-specific Integra evidence​

StudyYearnEtiologyProtocolGraft takeOutcome
Liguori[1]20206Lymphedema, skin deficiencyIntegra + NPWT → STSG at 3 wk100%At 6 mo — adequate elasticity, epidermis slides over neodermis like native skin
Jaskille[7]200933rd-degree penile burnsIntegra → thin STSG100%Near-normal skin quality; no contracture; pain-free erections at 6 mo
Ludolph[6]20163Fournier's (2) / HS (1)NPWT → Integra → NPWT → STSG100%Satisfactory function and aesthetics
Valdatta[10]20141Degloving traumaIntegra → STSG + local flapsSuccessfulSexual function at 16 mo
Payne[11]20091Necrotizing fasciitis post-circumcisionIntegra (penis) + lotus-petal flaps (scrotum)SuccessfulPliable neodermis, erectile capability

Integra advantages and limitations​

AdvantageLimitation
Scar-free foundation reduces contractureTwo-stage (silicone removal + delayed STSG)
At 6 mo, epidermis slides over neodermis like native skinNo nerve / elastic-fiber regeneration
Thicker, more durable envelope than STSG aloneSignificant cost
Suitable for contaminated / compromised beds with NPWT stabilizationClosed space under silicone can harbor bacteria

1B. Matriderm® (single-stage)​

Bovine collagen (types I, III, V) + elastin hydrolysate. No silicone layer → enables single-stage STSG-on-top application.[2][13]

  • Resorbed earlier than Integra — evidence of resorption at week 3; completely replaced by neodermis at 2 mo
  • Early vascularization and inflammatory infiltrate within the first 2 weeks support the overlying STSG

Penile-specific Matriderm evidence​

StudyYearnEtiologyProtocolGraft takeOutcome
Crane[2]202636 (38 ops)Buried penis, Fournier's, cancer, scarringMatriderm + STSG (single-stage)92.1%Good-to-excellent cosmesis 74.4%; functional improvement 97.0%; psychological improvement 75%
Kang[12]202611Foreign-body granuloma (Vaseline, HA, fillers)Matriderm Flex + STSG + NPWT (−125 mmHg)90.9%Median satisfaction 37 / 45; median follow-up 18 mo

Crane is the largest published penile-resurfacing series using any tissue substitute:[2]

  • 92.1% successful uptake (35 / 38); 2 partial losses, 1 complete loss — all managed conservatively
  • 97.0% functional improvement in 32 / 33 procedures with data
  • 75% psychological improvement
  • One patient underwent three resurfacing procedures for recurrent scarring with no graft loss across any operation

Matriderm advantages vs Integra​

  • Single-stage — avoids the second operation, anesthesia exposure, recovery time
  • Elastin content — theoretically better long-term elasticity
  • Thinner profile — less bulk between STSG and bed; better take in some series
  • Faster resorption — fully replaced by neodermis at 2 mo

General-wound Matriderm + STSG vs STSG-alone (Cervelli n = 60): 95% re-epithelialization at 2 wk (Matriderm) vs 75–80% (STSG alone); reduced wound contraction and improved scar quality.[15]

1C. AlloDerm®, Epiflex®, and acellular porcine pericardium​

Used primarily for Peyronie's disease tunical grafting and as structural scaffolds in phalloplasty — not for shaft skin replacement.[16][17][18][19]

  • AlloDerm® (human cadaveric ADM) — Peyronie's grafting (~ 80–100% patient satisfaction across various grafts, no superior single material); Chaudhry — congenital aphallia / scrotal-flap phalloplasty for added girth and structural support
  • Acellular porcine pericardium (Tutopatch) — Kayigil n = 53 vs autologous saphenous vein: shorter OR, shorter sensation-loss duration, comparable IIEF-5
  • Epiflex® (acellular human dermis) — Adamakis n = 5 Peyronie's grafting: no deformity, infection, antigenicity, or de novo ED

Category 2 — Tissue Expanders​

Mechanically generate additional autologous penile skin by stretching residual native skin over 6–16 weeks before definitive reconstruction.[20][21][22][23][24][25]

Penile-specific tissue-expander evidence​

StudyYearnEtiologyExpansion periodSuccess
Harris[21]202050 (27 TE / 19 SG / 4 both)Exstrophy-epispadiasVariable70% primary, 96% overall
Harris[20]202312 (2 TE / 10 FTSG)Circumcision skin excisionVariable100% (TE)
Kajbafzadeh[22]200716Failed phallic reconstruction2–11 mo (mean 4.6)100% sufficient skin
Mir / Hanna[23]20116Hypospadias cripples (5–8 prior ops)12–16 wk100%
Mathews[24]200518Exstrophy / epispadias / hypospadias6 wk94% (17 / 18 inflated)
Harris[25]202324Proximal hypospadias with PSTVariable87.5%

Advantages and limitations​

AdvantageLimitation
Autologous, pigment- and texture-matched genital skinRequires sufficient residual penile skin
No donor-site morbidityExtrusion 9–17%
Native sensation retainedMultiple clinic visits over weeks-to-months
Preferred for primary reconstruction in lengtheningTwo-stage
Not for acute reconstruction

Category 3 — NPWT as Adjunct​

NPWT is not itself a substitute but is a critical adjunct to both ADM and graft success on the irregular high-mobility penile surface.[26][27][28][29]

General-wound RCT data (Lee 2025 meta of 16 RCTs)[26]​

    • 8.3% overall graft take (95% CI 2.97–13.63)
    • 10.0% take at −80 mmHg (95% CI 5.69–14.34)
  • OR 1.86 for graft success; OR 0.44 for loss; OR 0.36 for complications; OR 0.31 for reoperation

Irregular high-mobility surfaces (Cao 2022 RCT, n = 86)[29]​

  • NPWT take 97.6% vs tie-over 81.7% (p < significance)

Penile-specific protocol (Iblher 2012)[28]​

  • Intraoperative PGE1 to tailor graft to erect penis
  • NPWT to stabilize the graft
  • Postoperative tadalafil for pharmacologic neodermis expansion
  • n = 4 — graft take 97–100%, mild contracture (Post / Pre 81–87%), adequate erection-time flexibility (non-erect / erect 50–72%)

Meta-analysis suggests −80 mmHg is optimal; Kang's penile series used −125 mmHg with 90.9% take.[26][12]

Category 4 — Integra for Phalloplasty Donor-Site Closure​

Falcone 2026 RAFFF forearm donor-site comparison (n = 34):[30]

OutcomeFTSG (n = 18)Integra + STSG (n = 16)p
Complete graft take27.8%93.8%0.001
Healing time30 d24 d0.003
Operative time447 min310 min0.001
Hospital stay10 d8 d0.001
Cosmesis satisfaction66.7%93.8%0.048

Integra + STSG significantly outperforms FTSG for RAFFF forearm donor-site closure on every measured outcome.

Category 5 — Emerging / Investigational​

ProductSourcePenile dataGeneral data
Amniotic membraneHuman placentaNone published for penile reconstructionAnti-inflammatory, bacteriostatic, re-epithelializing, anti-scarring; routine in ophthalmology and chronic wounds[31][32][33][34]
SIS-ECM (OASIS)Porcine small-intestinal submucosaNone for shaft reconstructionTherapeutic ECM scaffold; used in urethroplasty and bladder augmentation[35][36]
Acellular fish skin (Kerecis)Gadus morhua (omega-3)NoneRCT n = 170 — fish-skin grafts healed significantly faster than dehydrated human amnion / chorion membrane (HR 2.37, p = 0.0014); retrospective n = 44 — 88.6% positive healing[37][38]
Ovine forestomach matrix (Endoform)Ovine ECMNoneBohn n = 6 complex defects with exposed vital structures — 100% take at 1 wk[39]
Collagen-GAG scaffolds / CSSBioengineeredInvestigationalCultured-skin substitutes with epidermal barrier function comparable to native skin in burn trials[40][41][42]

Comprehensive Comparison​

ProductCompositionStagingLargest penile seriesGraft takeKey advantageKey limitation
Matriderm®Bovine collagen I/III/V + elastinSingle-stageCrane 2026 n = 3692.1%Single-stage; largest evidence; elastinNo silicone barrier (contaminated bed risk)
Integra®Bovine collagen + chondroitin-6-sulfate + siliconeTwo-stageLiguori n = 6100%Scar-free neodermis; proven for burns / Fournier'sTwo-stage; no elastic fibers
AlloDerm®Human cadaveric ADMVariableCase reports (Peyronie's, aphallia)n/aHuman-derivedLimited shaft data
Epiflex®Human ADMSingleAdamakis n = 5 Peyronie'sn/aNo antigenicityPeyronie's tunical only
Tissue expandersSilicone balloonTwo-stageHarris 2020 n = 50n/aAutologous, sensate, matched skinRequires residual skin; extrusion 9–17%
NPWT (adjunct)Foam / film + suctionAdjunctIblher n = 497–100%+ 8–10% take; − complicationsAdjunct only
Matriderm Flex + NPWTBovine collagen-elastin + NPWTSingle-stageKang 2026 n = 1190.9%Simplified single-stageForeign-body granuloma only

Decision Algorithm​

Clinical scenarioPreferred substitute pathway
Clean wound + sufficient residual penile skinTissue expander — autologous, sensate, matched skin[20][21]
Clean wound, no residual penile skin, single-stage desiredMatriderm + STSG ± NPWT — largest single-stage evidence[2][12]
Contaminated / compromised wound (Fournier's, burns, NF)NPWT for stabilization → Integra → delayed STSG[1][6]
Peyronie's tunical graftingAlloDerm / Epiflex / acellular porcine pericardium[19][16][18]
RAFFF forearm donor-site closureIntegra + STSG — significantly superior to FTSG[30]
Full-thickness penile burnIntegra → thin STSG[7]

Key Penile-Specific Principles​

  1. Tailor the graft to the erect penis — intraoperative PGE1 erection; flaccid measurements undersize by 50–72% (Iblher)[28]
  2. NPWT outperforms tie-over on the penis — 97.6% vs 81.7% take in irregular high-mobility areas[29][26]
  3. Unmeshed STSG preferred — depth ~ 0.046 cm (0.018"); meshed grafts leave a permanent pattern unacceptable on the shaft
  4. Thinner dermal substitutes perform better in single-stage protocols — porcine model showed worse graft take at POD 14 / 28 with thicker matrices (Spearman ρ = −0.50 and −0.45, p significant)[14]
  5. Multidisciplinary collaboration — Liguori specifically advises urology + plastic-surgery teaming for optimal tissue-substitute outcomes[1]

Key Takeaways​

  • Matriderm + STSG (single-stage) has the largest published penile-resurfacing evidence base for any tissue substitute (Crane 2026 n = 36, 92.1% take)
  • Integra → delayed STSG (two-stage) is the preferred pathway for contaminated / compromised beds; NPWT before and after Integra stabilizes the wound and supports the STSG
  • Tissue expanders generate autologous, sensate, matched penile skin — first-line when residual penile skin is sufficient
  • NPWT is a critical adjunct that adds 8–10% to graft take and substantially reduces complications on the penis
  • Integra + STSG significantly outperforms FTSG for RAFFF forearm donor-site closure in total phallic construction
  • Emerging products (amniotic, SIS-ECM, fish skin, ovine forestomach) have no penile-specific data yet — their general-wound performance suggests potential

Cross-references​

References​

1. Liguori G, Papa G, Boltri M, et al. "Reconstruction of Penile Skin Loss Using a Combined Therapy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy, Dermal Regeneration Template, and Split-Thickness Skin Graft Application." Int J Impot Res. 2020;33(8):854–859. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-00343-1

2. Crane J, Lloyd A, Kaul A, Sethia K, Clibbon J. "Matriderm® as a Biological Scaffold in Penile Resurfacing: A Single-Centre Case Series." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2026;115:325–330. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2026.02.045

3. Hamad J, McCormick BJ, Sayed CJ, et al. "Multidisciplinary Update on Genital Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Review." JAMA Surg. 2020;155(10):970–977. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.2611

4. Kristinsson S, Johnson M, Ralph D. "Review of Penile Reconstructive Techniques." Int J Impot Res. 2021;33(3):243–250. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-0246-4

5. Thakar HJ, Dugi DD. "Skin Grafting of the Penis." Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40(3):439–48. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2013.04.004

6. Ludolph I, Titel T, Beier JP, et al. "Penile Reconstruction With Dermal Template and Vacuum Therapy in Severe Skin and Soft Tissue Defects Caused by Fournier's Gangrene and Hidradenitis Suppurativa." Int Wound J. 2016;13(1):77–81. doi:10.1111/iwj.12235

7. Jaskille AD, Shupp JW, Jeng JC, Jordan MH. "Use of Integra in the Treatment of Third Degree Burns to the Penile Shaft: A Case Series With 6-Month Follow-Up." J Burn Care Res. 2009;30(3):524–8. doi:10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181a28d4b

8. Moiemen NS, Vlachou E, Staiano JJ, Thawy Y, Frame JD. "Reconstructive Surgery With Integra Dermal Regeneration Template: Histologic Study, Clinical Evaluation, and Current Practice." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7 Suppl):160S–174S. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000222609.40461.68

9. Mihalečko J, Boháč M, Danišovič Ľ, et al. "Acellular Dermal Matrix in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery." Physiol Res. 2022;71(Suppl 1):S51–S57.

10. Valdatta L, Maggiulli F, Scamoni S, Pellegatta I, Cherubino M. "Reconstructive Management of Degloving Trauma of Male External Genitalia Using Dermal Regeneration Template: A Case Report." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(2):264–6. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.06.003

11. Payne CE, Williams AM, Hart NB. "Lotus Petal Flaps for Scrotal Reconstruction Combined With Integra Resurfacing of the Penis and Anterior Abdominal Wall Following Necrotising Fasciitis." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(3):393–7. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.09.015

12. Kang D, Hong SE, Kim YH. "Single-Stage Penile Resurfacing for Foreign Body Granuloma: A Simplified Negative Pressure Wound Therapy-Assisted Protocol With Dermal Substitute." Urology. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2026.04.013

13. Dickson K, Lee KC, Abdulsalam A, et al. "A Histological and Clinical Study of MatriDerm® Use in Burn Reconstruction." J Burn Care Res. 2023;44(5):1100–1109. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irad024

14. Kemp Bohan PM, Cooper LE, Fletcher JL, et al. "Impact of Dermal Matrix Thickness on Split-Thickness Skin Graft Survival and Wound Contraction in a Single-Stage Procedure." Int Wound J. 2022;19(2):370–379. doi:10.1111/iwj.13637

15. Cervelli V, Brinci L, Spallone D, et al. "The Use of MatriDerm® and Skin Grafting in Post-Traumatic Wounds." Int Wound J. 2011;8(4):400–5. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00806.x

16. Chierigo F, Bettocchi C, Campos-Juanatey F, et al. "Use of Grafting Materials During Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Patients With Peyronie's Disease — a Systematic Review." Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(6):534–542. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00479-8

17. Chaudhry R, Theisen KM, Dangle PP, Schneck FX. "Congenital Aphallia: Novel Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix During Scrotal Flap Phalloplasty." Urology. 2017;105:167–170. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.008

18. Kayigil O, Ozcan MF, Cakici OU. "The Comparison of an Acellular Matrix Graft With an Autologous Venous Graft in the Surgical Treatment of Peyronie's Disease." Andrologia. 2019;51(1):e13168. doi:10.1111/and.13168

19. Adamakis I, Tyritzis SI, Stravodimos KG, et al. "A Novel Approach for the Surgical Management of Peyronie's Disease Using an Acellular, Human Dermis Tissue Graft: Preliminary Results." World J Urol. 2011;29(3):399–403. doi:10.1007/s00345-010-0598-3

20. Harris TGW, Khandge P, Wu WJ, et al. "Surgical Approach to Penile Reconstruction for Shaft Skin Excision From Circumcision." Pediatr Surg Int. 2023;39(1):138. doi:10.1007/s00383-023-05409-x

21. Harris TGW, Maruf M, Leto Barone AA, Redett RJ, Gearhart JP. "Utility of Skin Grafting and Tissue Expansion in Penile Reconstruction for the Exstrophy-Epispadias Complex." Urology. 2020;136:231–237. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.017

22. Kajbafzadeh AM, Sina A, Payabvash S. "Management of Multiple Failed Repairs of the Phallus Using Tissue Expanders: Long-Term Postpubertal Results." J Urol. 2007;177(5):1872–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.047

23. Mir T, Simpson RL, Hanna MK. "The Use of Tissue Expanders for Resurfacing of the Penis for Hypospadias Cripples." Urology. 2011;78(6):1424–9. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.021

24. Mathews R, Nelson CP, Gearhart JP, Vander Kolk CA. "Tissue Expansion in Management of Failed Phallic Reconstruction: Initial Report of Clinical Series." Urology. 2005;66(1):180–4. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.063

25. Harris TGW, Mudalegundi S, Haney NM, et al. "The Role of Tissue Expanders in the Reconstruction of Proximal Hypospadias." Urology. 2023;176:150–155. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.007

26. Lee SC, Bayan L, Sato A, et al. "Benefits of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Skin Grafts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;102:204–217. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2025.01.036

27. Jiang ZY, Yu XT, Liao XC, et al. "Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy in Skin Grafts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials." Burns. 2021;47(4):747–755. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2021.02.012

28. Iblher N, Fritsche HM, Katzenwadel A, et al. "Refinements in Reconstruction of Penile Skin Loss Using Intra-Operative Prostaglandin Injections, Postoperative Tadalafil Application and Negative Pressure Dressings." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(10):1377–83. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2012.04.020

29. Cao X, Hu Z, Zhang Y, et al. "Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Improves Take Rate of Skin Graft in Irregular, High-Mobility Areas: A Randomized Controlled Trial." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(6):1341–1349. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009704

30. Falcone M, Preto M, Ciclamini D, et al. "Bioengineered Dermal Matrix (Integra®) Reduces Donor Site Morbidity in Total Phallic Construction With Radial Artery Forearm Free-Flap." Int J Impot Res. 2026;38(4):333–339. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00775-5

31. Munoz-Torres JR, Martínez-González SB, Lozano-Luján AD, et al. "Biological Properties and Surgical Applications of the Human Amniotic Membrane." Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:1067480. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.1067480

32. Litwiniuk M, Grzela T. "Amniotic Membrane: New Concepts for an Old Dressing." Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22(4):451–6. doi:10.1111/wrr.12188

33. Mamede AC, Carvalho MJ, Abrantes AM, et al. "Amniotic Membrane: From Structure and Functions to Clinical Applications." Cell Tissue Res. 2012;349(2):447–58. doi:10.1007/s00441-012-1424-6

34. Corrêa MEAB, Silveira PCL. "Amniotic Membrane in Wound Healing: New Perspectives." J Wound Care. 2024;33(8):612–616. doi:10.12968/jowc.2022.0054

35. Simman R. "Role of Small Intestinal Submucosa Extracellular Matrix in Advanced Regenerative Wound Therapy." J Wound Care. 2023;32(Sup1a):S3–S10. doi:10.12968/jowc.2023.32.Sup1a.S3

36. Simman R. "Role of Small Intestinal Submucosa Extracellular Matrix in Advanced Regenerative Wound Therapy." J Wound Care. 2023;32(Sup2):S3–S10. doi:10.12968/jowc.2023.32.Sup2.S3

37. Böddeker C, Biermann S, Jansen TM, Homey B, Hoff NP. "Evaluation of Acellular Intact Fish Skin Grafts for Treating Acute and Chronic Wounds." Int Wound J. 2026;23(5):e70931. doi:10.1111/iwj.70931

38. Kirsner RS, Margolis DJ, Baldursson BT, et al. "Fish Skin Grafts Compared to Human Amnion/Chorion Membrane Allografts: A Double-Blind, Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Acute Wound Healing." Wound Repair Regen. 2020;28(1):75–80. doi:10.1111/wrr.12761

39. Bohn GA, Chaffin AE. "Extracellular Matrix Graft for Reconstruction Over Exposed Structures: A Pilot Case Series." J Wound Care. 2020;29(12):742–749. doi:10.12968/jowc.2020.29.12.742

40. Anderegg U, Halfter N, Schnabelrauch M, Hintze V. "Collagen/Glycosaminoglycan-Based Matrices for Controlling Skin Cell Responses." Biol Chem. 2021;402(11):1325–1335. doi:10.1515/hsz-2021-0176

41. Goodarzi P, Falahzadeh K, Nematizadeh M, et al. "Tissue Engineered Skin Substitutes." Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1107:143–188. doi:10.1007/5584_2018_226

42. Boyce ST. "Skin Substitutes From Cultured Cells and Collagen-GAG Polymers." Med Biol Eng Comput. 1998;36(6):791–800. doi:10.1007/BF02518886