Cell sources for trachea tissue engineering: past, present and future.
He X., Fu W., Zheng J.
Narrative Review, published in Regen Med (2012) — 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
- Regen Med (2012)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 23164084
- DOI
- 10.2217/rme.12.96
- Citations
- 9
Abstract (original English)
Trachea tissue engineering has been one of the most promising approaches to providing a potential clinical application for the treatment of long-segment tracheal stenosis. The sources of the cells are particularly important as the primary factor for tissue engineering. The use of appropriate cells seeded onto scaffolds holds huge promise as a means of engineering the trachea. Furthermore, appropriate cells would accelerate the regeneration of the tissue even without scaffolds. Besides autologous mature cells, various stem cells, including bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells, adipose tissue-derived stem cells, umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells, amniotic fluid stem cells, embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells, have received extensive attention in the field of trachea tissue engineering. Therefore, this article reviews the progress on different cell sources for engineering tracheal cartilage and epithelium, which can lead to a better selection and strategy for engineering the trachea.
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.