Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biologic Materials for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction

  • Stress Incontinence and Pelvic Prolapse (RR Dmochowski, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of biologic grafts in the surgical treatment of pelvic prolapse repair has been an intriguing prospect for several years. These tissues have been thought to potentially combine favorable attributes of both autologous and synthetic tissues. These tissues are harvested and undergo complex decellularization, dehydration, terminal sterilization, and possibly cross-linking. It is these steps that determine the graft’s eventual biocompatibility and potential for remodeling. A PubMed literature search has revealed a number of studies evaluating cadaveric allografts and bovine and porcine xenografts in repairs of the anterior, posterior, and apical compartments. While the study quality varies significantly, overall, there is little compelling evidence to unequivocally support the use of a biologic tissue in any compartment. Furthermore, an analysis of postoperative complications reveals a similarity in graft-related complication profiles between some biologic grafts and synthetic meshes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •Of importance ••Of major importance

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1496–501.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, et al. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:646–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD. Women seeking treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse have decreased body image and quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1455–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wein AJ. Voiding function and dysfunction, bladder physiology and pharmacology, and female urology. J Urol. 2011;186:2328–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davila GW, Drutz H, Deprest J. Clinical implications of the biology of grafts: conclusions of the 2005 IUGA Grafts Roundtable. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17:S51–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, et al. Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2008;115:1350–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, et al. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1131–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener C: Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 4: CD004014. This is a recent Cochrane review regarding POP repair.

  11. Cumberland VH. A preliminary report on the use of prefabricated nylon weave in the repair of ventral hernia. Med J Aust. 1952;1:143–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Scales JT. Tissue reactions to synthetic materials. Proc R Soc Med. 1953;46:647–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cosson M, Debodinance P, Boukerrou M, et al. Mechanical properties of synthetic implants used in the repair of prolapse and urinary incontinence in women: which is the ideal material? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14:169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kushner L, Mathrubutham M, Burney T, et al. Excretion of collagen-derived peptides is increased in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2004;23:198–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mangera A, Bullock AJ, Chapple CR, MacNeil S. Are biomechanical properties predictive of the success of prostheses used in stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse? A systematic review. Neurourol Urodynam. 2012;31:13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilbert TW, Freund JM, Badylak SF. Quantification of DNA in biologic scaffold materials. J Surg Res. 2009;152:135–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB. Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18:555–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deprest J, Zheng F, Konstantinovic M, et al. The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;17:S16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liles W, Van Voorhis WC. Nomenclature and biological significance of cytokines involved in inflammation and host immune response. J Infect Dis. 1995;172:1573–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tang L, Eaton JW. Fibrinogen mediates acute inflammatory responses to biomaterials. J Exp Med. 1993;178:2147–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang L, Eaton JW. Inflammatory responses to biomaterials. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:466–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Horowitz SM, Gonzales JB. Effects of polyethylene on macrophages. J Orthop Res. 1997;15:50–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hodde J, Badylak S, Brightman A, Voytik-Harbin S. Glycosaminoglycan content of small intestinal submucosa: a bioscaffold for tissue replacement. Tissue Engineering. 1996;2:209–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McPherson JM, Sawamura SJ, Condell RA, et al. The effects of heparin on the physicochemical properties of reconstituted collagen. Coll Relat Res. 1988;8:65–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy GF, Orgill DP, Yannas IV. Partial dermal regeneration is induced by biodegradable collagen-glycosaminoglycan grafts. Lab Invest. 1990;62:305–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Amundsen CL, Visco AG, Ruiz H, et al. Outcome in 104 pubovaginal slings using freeze-dried allograft fascia lata from a single tissue bank. Urology. 2000;56(Suppl 6A):2–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Amrute KV, Badlani GH. The science behind biomaterials in female stress urinary incontinence surgery. ScientificWorldJournal. 2009;9:23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. •• Crapo PM, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF: An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials 2011, 32: 3233-3243. This is a state-of-the-art review of details regarding processing and treatment of biologic tissue during decellularization.

  29. Moalli PA. Cadaveric fascia lata. Int Urogyn J. 2006;17:S48–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lemer ML, Chaikin DC, Blaivas JG. Tissue strength analysis of autologous and cadaveric allografts for the pubovaginal sling. Neurourol Urodynam. 1999;18:497–503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Fitzgerald MP, Mollenhauer J, Bitterman P, et al. Functional failure of fascia lata allografts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:1339–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Badylak S, Liang A, Record R, et al. Endothelial cell adherence to small intestinal submucosa: an acellular bioscaffold. Biomaterials. 1999;20:2257–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Santucci RA, Barber TD. Resorbable extracellular matrix grafts in urologic reconstruction. Int Braz J Urol. 2005;31:192–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Connolly RJ. Evaluation of a unique bovine collagen matrix for soft tissue repair and reinforcement. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17:S44–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Philadelphia: Churchill-Livingstone; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gomelsky A, Haverkorn RM, Simoneaux WJ, et al. Incidence and management of vaginal extrusion of acellular porcine dermis after incontinence and prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:1337–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Allman AJ, McPherson TB, Badylak SF, et al. Xenogeneic extracellular matrix grafts elicit a TH2-restricted immune response. Transplantation. 2001;71:1631–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ho KL, Witte MN, Bird ET. 8-ply small intestinal submucosa tension-free sling: spectrum of postoperative inflammation. J Urol. 2004;171:268–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kalota SJ. Small intestinal submucosa tension-free sling: postoperative inflammatory reactions and additional data. J Urol. 2004;172:1349–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. • http://www.cookmedical.com/content/mmedia/COOK_Comments_for%20FDAOb-GynPanel_re_Pelvic%20OrganProlapse.pdf (accessed March 30, 2012). This is a succinct and updated review of graft-related complications and postoperative sequelae such as pain and dyspareunia after biologic, synthetic, and standard anterior compartment repairs.

  41. Groutz A, Chaikin DC, Theusen E, Blaivas JG. Use of cadaveric solvent-dehydrated fascia lata for cystocele repair – preliminary results. Urology. 2001;58:179–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Powell CR, Simsiman AJ, Menefee SA. Anterior vaginal wall hammock with fascia lata for the correction of stage 2 or greater anterior vaginal compartment relaxation. J Urol. 2004;171:264–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Frederick RW, Leach GE. Cadaveric prolapse repair with sling: intermediate outcomes with 6 months to 5 years of followup. J Urol. 2005;173:1229–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Kwon C, et al. A prospective randomized trial using solvent dehydrated fascia lata prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1649–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chung SY, Franks M, Smith CP, et al. Technique of combined pubovaginal sling and cystocele repair using a single piece of cadaveric dermal graft. Urology. 2002;59:538–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ward RM, Sung VW, Clemons JL, Myers DL. Vaginal paravaginal repair with AlloDerm graft: long-term outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:670.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Botros SM, Sand PK, Beaumont JL, et al. Arcus-anchored acellular dermal graft compared to anterior colporrhaphy for stage II cystoceles and beyond. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:1265–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gomelsky A, Rudy DC, Dmochowski RR. Porcine dermis interposition graft for repair of high grade anterior compartment defects with or without concomitant pelvic organ prolapse procedures. J Urol. 2004;171:1581–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mahdy A, Elmissiry M, Ghoniem G. The outcome of transobturator cystocele repair using biocompatible porcine dermis graft: our experience with 32 cases. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:1647–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ramanah R, Mairot J, Clement MC, et al. Evaluating the porcine dermis graft Intexen® in three compartment transvaginal pelvic prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1151–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Salomon LJ, Detchev R, Barranger E, et al. Treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse with porcine skin collagen implant by the transobturator route: preliminary results. Eur Urol. 2004;45:219–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. David-Montefiore E, Barranger E, Dubernard G, et al. Treatment of genital prolapse by hammock using porcine skin collagen implant (Pelvicol). Urology. 2005;66:1314–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Menefee SA. Vaginal paravaginal repair with porcine dermal reinforcement: correction of advanced anterior vaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1832–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wheeler II TL, Richter HE, Duke AG, et al. Outcomes with porcine graft placement in the anterior vaginal compartments in patients who undergo high vaginal uterosacral suspension and cystocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1486–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ross J. Porcine dermal hammock for repair of anterior and posterior vaginal wall prolapse: 5-year outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:459–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Darai E, Coutant C, Rouzier R, et al. Genital prolapse repair using porcine skin implant and bilateral sacrospinous fixation: midterm functional outcome and quality-of-life assessment. Urology. 2009;73:245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Koutsougeras G, Nicolaou P, Karamanidis D, et al. Effectiveness of transvaginal colporrhaphy with porcine acellular collagen matrix in the treatment of moderate to severe cystoceles. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009;36:179–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. de Boer TA, Gietelink DA, Hendriks JC, Vierhout ME. Factors influencing success of pelvic organ prolapse repair using porcine dermal implant Pelvicol®. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149:112–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, et al. Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomized study. J Urol. 2007;177:192–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hviid U, Hviid TV, Rudnicki M. Porcine skin collagen implants for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised prospective controlled study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:529–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dahlgren E, Kjolhede P. Long-term outcome of porcine skin graft in surgical treatment of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. An open randomized controlled multicenter study Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:1393–401.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Leboeuf L, Miles RA, Kim SS, Gousse AE. Grade 4 cystocele repair using four-defect repair and porcine xenograft acellular matrix (Pelvicol): outcome measures using SEAPI. Urology. 2004;64:282–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Natale F, La Penna C, Padoa A, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh®, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol®, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:75–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. •• Menefee SA, Duer KY, Lukacz ES, et al.: Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118: 1337-1344. This was an RCT reporting 24-month follow-up in women undergoing cross-linked PD, polypropylene graft, or standard anterior colporrhaphy. Significant subjective and objective improvement was seen for polypropylene versus PD and standard repair.

  65. Handel LN, Frenkl TL, Kim YH. Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis. J Urol. 2007;178:153–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Armitage S, Seman EI, Keirse MJ: Use of Surgisys for treatment of anterior and posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:376251. Epub 2012 Jan 15.

  67. Jeffery ST, Doumouchtsis SK, Parappallil S, et al. Outcomes, recurrence rates, and postoperative sexual function after secondary vaginal prolapse surgery using the small intestinal submucosa graft. J Pelvic Med Surg. 2009;15:151–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Chaliha C, Khalid U, Campagna L, et al. SIS graft for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair—a case-controlled study. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17:492–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Feldner Jr PC, Castro RA, Cipolotti LA, et al. Anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial of SIS graft versus traditional colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1057–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mouritsen L, Kronschnabl M, Lose G. Long-term results of vaginal repairs with and without xenograft reinforcement. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Reid RI, You H, Luo K. Site-specific prolapse surgery. I. Reliability and durability of native tissue paravaginal repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:591–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Goldstein HB, Maccarone J, Naughton MJ, et al. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating fetal bovine dermal graft (Xenform® Matrix) for pelvic reconstructive surgery. BMC Urology. 2010;10:21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Guerette NL, Peterson TV, Aguirre OA, et al. Anterior repair with or without collagen matrix reinforcement. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Dell JR, O’Kelley KR. PelviSoft BioMesh augmentation of rectocele repair: the initial clinical experience in 35 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16:44–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Taylor GB, Moore RD, Miklos JR, Mattox TF. Posterior repair with perforated porcine dermal graft. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34:84–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Novi JM, Bradley CS, Mahmoud NN, et al. Sexual function in women after rectocele repair with acellular porcine dermis graft vs site-specific rectovaginal fascia repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18:1163–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Drake NL, Weidner AC, Webster GD, Amundsen CL. Patient characteristics and management of dermal allograft extrusions. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16:375–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Kobashi KC, Leach GE, Frederick R, et al. Initial experience with rectocele repair using nonfrozen cadaveric fascia lata interposition. Urology. 2005;66:1203–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kohli N, Miklos JR. Dermal graft-augmented rectocele repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2003;14:146–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Altman D, Zetterstrom J, Lopez A, et al. Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Smart NJ, Mercer-Jones MA. Functional outcome after transperineal rectocele repair with porcine dermal collagen implant. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Biehl RC, Moore RD, Miklos JR, et al. Site-specific rectocele repair with dermal graft augmentation: comparison of porcine dermal xenograft (Pelvicol®) and human dermal allograft. Surg Tech Int. 2008;17:174–80.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1762–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Flynn MK, Webster GD, Amundsen CL. Abdominal sacral colpopexy with allograft fascia lata: one-year outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1496–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. FitzGerald MP, Edwards SR, Fenner D. Medium-term follow-up on use of freeze-dried, irradiated donor fascia for sacrocolpopexy and sling procedures. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004;15:238–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Gregory WT, Otto LN, Bergstrom JO, Clark AL. Surgical outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy with synthetic mesh versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy with cadaveric fascia lata. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16:369–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Loffeld C, Thijs S, Mol BW, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a comparison of Prolene® and Tutoplast® mesh. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:826–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Culligan PJ, Blackwell L, Goldsmith LJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing fascia lata and synthetic mesh for sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Van Beckevoort D, et al. Sacrocolopexy using xenogenic acellular collagen in patients at increased risk for graft-related complications. Neurourol Urodynam. 2010;29:563–7.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Deprest J, De Ridder D, Roovers J-P, et al. Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol. 2009;182:2362–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Altman D, Anzen B, Brismar S, et al. Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh. Urology. 2006;67:719–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Ross JW. The use of a xenogenic barrier to prevent mesh erosion with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:470–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, et al.: Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 198: 557.e1-557.e5.

  94. • Deffieux X, Savary D, Letouzey V, et al.: [Prevention of the complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice - literature review]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2011, 40: 827-850. This is an updated systematic review of abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Gomelsky has served as a consultant for the Coloplast Group.

Dr. Dmochowski has served as a consultant for Allergan, Merck & Co., and Johnson & Johnson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center–Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71130, USA

    Alex Gomelsky

  2. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, A-1302, Medical Center North, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Roger R. Dmochowski

Authors
  1. Alex Gomelsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger R. Dmochowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger R. Dmochowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gomelsky, A., Dmochowski, R.R. Biologic Materials for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 7, 201–209 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-012-0139-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-012-0139-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation