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

Scaffold Characteristics for Functional Hollow Organ Regeneration

Horst M., Madduri S., Gobet R., Sulser T., Hall H., Eberli D.

Narrative Review, published in Materials (Basel) (2010) — 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
Materials (Basel) (2010)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMCID
PMC5510698
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Many medical conditions require surgical reconstruction of hollow organs. Tissue engineering of organs and tissues is a promising new technique without harvest site morbidity. An ideal biomaterial should be biocompatible, support tissue formation and provide adequate structural support. It should degrade gradually and provide an environment allowing for cell-cell interaction, adhesion, proliferation, migration, and differentiation. Although tissue formation is feasible, functionality has never been demonstrated. Mainly the lack of proper innervation and vascularisation are hindering contractility and normal function. In this chapter we critically review the current state of engineering hollow organs with a special focus on innervation and vascularisation.

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.