Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Intraoperative Bioprinting: Repairing Tissues and Organs in a Surgical Setting

Wu Y., Ravnic DJ., Ozbolat IT.

Narrative Review, published in Trends Biotechnol (2020) — 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
Trends Biotechnol (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32407688
PMCID
PMC7666846
DOI
10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.01.004
Citations
72

Abstract (original English)

3D bioprinting directly into injured sites in a surgical setting, intraoperative bioprinting (IOB), is an effective process, in which the defect information can be rapidly acquired and then repaired via bioprinting on a live subject. In patients needing tissue resection, debridement, traumatic reconstruction, or fracture repair, the ability to scan and bioprint immediately following surgical preparation of the defect site has great potential to improve the precision and efficiency of these procedures. In this opinion article, we provide the reader with current major limitations of IOB from engineering and clinical points of view, as well as possibilities of future translation of bioprinting technologies from bench to bedside, and expound our perspectives in the context of IOB of composite and vascularized tissues.

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
HumansTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBioprintingPrinting, Three-Dimensional

Browse all related research

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