Supplementary Material for: Pericardium in Reconstructive Urologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The use of pericardium has been expanded into different surgical modalities; however, there are scarce data regarding the feasibility of the pericardium in reconstructive urologic surgeries. We systematically reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of the pericardial tissue for reconstructive urologic surgeries. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> PubMed and Scopus were searched online for evidence on the use of the pericardium in urologic surgeries. Through the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, 38 of 4,071 studies were identified. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 715 patients and 139 animals underwent reconstructive urologic surgeries using the pericardium. Bladder, urethral, and renal reconstructions were successful in 100% of the human cases. The rates of dissatisfaction, glans hypoesthesia, and penile shortening were comparable between the pericardial graft surgeries and the other operations during penile straightening, but there was a trend among the patients with pericardial grafts toward having a more penile curvature at follow-up (risk ratio [RR] 2.03, 95% CI 0.90–4.61, <i>p</i> = 0.09; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Among the animal studies, there were 4 reports of penile reconstruction, 7 studies of bladder reconstruction, and 1 study of urethroplasty. Bladder reconstruction and urethroplasty were successful in 83 and 20% of the animals, respectively. The pooled result of the stimulated intracorporeal pressure 5 V significantly favored pericardial grafts during penile reconstruction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.26–3.97, <i>p</i> = 0.0002; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our systematic review demonstrates the feasibility of the pericardium, regardless of its type, in urologic surgeries. It, however, seems that urethral substitution needs further investigation. Given the lower cost, easier handling, and less immunogenicity of the pericardium, further studies are required to examine its pros and cons.