Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Biological Macromolecule-Based Scaffolds for Urethra Reconstruction

Farzamfar S., Richer M., Rahmani M., Naji M., Aleahmad M., Chabaud S.

Narrative Review, published in Biomolecules (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Biomolecules (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37627232
PMCID
PMC10452429
DOI
10.3390/biom13081167
Citations
6

Abstract (original English)

Urethral reconstruction strategies are limited with many associated drawbacks. In this context, the main challenge is the unavailability of a suitable tissue that can endure urine exposure. However, most of the used tissues in clinical practices are non-specialized grafts that finally fail to prevent urine leakage. Tissue engineering has offered novel solutions to address this dilemma. In this technology, scaffolding biomaterials characteristics are of prime importance. Biological macromolecules are naturally derived polymers that have been extensively studied for various tissue engineering applications. This review discusses the recent advances, applications, and challenges of biological macromolecule-based scaffolds in urethral reconstruction.

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 evidence
UrethraBody FluidsPolymersBiocompatible MaterialsTissue Engineering

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.