Comparison of reconstructive materials

Accessible: easy to manufacture and obtain

Consistent: materials are reproducible

Durable

Cost-effective: less expensive to produce than allo- and xenografts

Infection: microporous and multifilament grafts in particular

Erosion: may erode into vagina or viscus

Host response: no risk of rejection

No erosion risk: although permanent sutures used to secure may erode

Cost-effective

Limited tissue quantity and quality possible

Morbidity: tissue harvest required

Accessible: larger quantities available than autografts, but depends on donor supply

No harvest morbidity

Low erosion risk

Infection: theoretical risk of transmission of host pathogens

Host response: potential for rejection

Inconsistent graft strength

Limited durability: processing may weaken material

Limited ability to compare among materials

Expensive

Accessible: larger quantities available than autografts

No harvest morbidity

Low erosion risk

Infection: theoretical risk of transmission of host pathogens

Host response: potential for rejection given nonhuman source

Inconsistent graft strength

Limited durability: processing may weaken material

Cultural issues with porcine or bovine products

Expensive