Hydrogels in adipose tissue engineering-Potential application in post-mastectomy breast regeneration.
O'Halloran NA., Dolan EB., Kerin MJ., Lowery AJ., Duffy GP.
Narrative Review, published in J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2018) — 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
- J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2018)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 30334613
- DOI
- 10.1002/term.2753
Abstract (original English)
Current methods of breast reconstruction are associated with significant shortcomings, including capsular contracture, infection, rupture, the need for reoperation in implant-based reconstruction, and donor site morbidity in autologous reconstruction. These limitations result in severe physical and psychological issues for breast cancer patients. Recently, research has moved into the field of adipose tissue engineering to overcome these limitations. A wide range of regenerative strategies has been devised utilising various scaffold designs and biomaterials. A scaffold capable of providing appropriate biochemical and biomechanical cues for adipogenesis is required. Hydrogels have been widely studied for their suitability for adipose tissue regeneration and are advantageous secondary to their ability to accurately imitate the native extracellular matrix. The aim of this review was to analyse the use of hydrogel scaffolds in the field of adipose tissue engineering.
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.