Advances in tracheal reconstruction
Haykal S., Salna M., Waddell TK., Hofer SO.
Narrative Review, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2014) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2014)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 25426361
- PMCID
- PMC4229282
- DOI
- 10.1097/gox.0000000000000097
- Citations
- 38
Abstract (original English)
Summary A recent revival of global interest for reconstruction of long-segment tracheal defects, which represents one of the most interesting and complex problems in head and neck and thoracic reconstructive surgery, has been witnessed. The trachea functions as a conduit for air, and its subunits including the epithelial layer, hyaline cartilage, and segmental blood supply make it particularly challenging to reconstruct. A myriad of attempts at replacing the trachea have been described. These along with the anatomy, indications, and approaches including microsurgical tracheal reconstruction will be reviewed. Novel techniques such as tissue-engineering approaches will also be discussed. Multiple attempts at replacing the trachea with synthetic scaffolds have been met with failure. The main lesson learned from such failures is that the trachea must not be treated as a "simple tube." Understanding the anatomy, developmental biology, physiology, and diseases affecting the trachea are required for solving this problem.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.