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

Regenerative Medicine Approaches to Stress Urinary Incontinence

Thibodeau A., Smith A., Chabaud S., Nadeau G., Ruel J., Bolduc S.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Biomimetics (Basel) (2026) — 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
Biomimetics (Basel) (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42187390
PMCID
PMC13204115
DOI
10.3390/biomimetics11050323

Abstract (original English)

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) affects a significant proportion of women and often requires surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. While midurethral slings (MUS) are widely used, concerns over complications such as mesh exposure/erosion and chronic pain have driven interest in regenerative medicine alternatives. This review explores emerging strategies, including stem cell therapies, platelet-rich plasma injections, decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds, injectable hydrogels, and bioengineered slings. These approaches aim to restore continence by promoting tissue regeneration, improving biocompatibility, and reducing adverse reactions. We evaluate their mechanisms, reported outcomes, and current stage of development, supported by in vitro and in vivo model data. Although promising, these technologies face challenges related to cell viability, scaffold integration, and clinical translation. Continued interdisciplinary research is essential to optimize these therapies and bring safer, more effective solutions to patients. Regenerative strategies may ultimately redefine the future of SUI treatment by offering biologically integrated, long-lasting alternatives to synthetic slings. To date, no tissue-engineered or regenerative biomimetic sling has received regulatory approval for routine clinical use in the management of stress urinary incontinence.

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research