The search for an optimal tissue-engineered urethra model for clinical application based on preclinical trials in male animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Chepelova N., Sagitova G., Munblit D., Suvorov A., Morozov A., Shpichka A.
Meta-analysis, published in Bioeng Transl Med (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Bioeng Transl Med (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39545075
- PMCID
- PMC11558198
- DOI
- 10.1002/btm2.10700
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
Tissue engineering has emerged as a promising avenue for reconstructive urology, though only a limited number of tissue-engineered urethral constructs have advanced to clinical testing. Presently, there exists a dearth of agreement regarding the most promising constructs deserving of implementation in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive analysis of preclinical trials findings of a tissue-engineered urethra and to identify the most promising constructs for future translation into clinical practice. A systematic search of the Pubmed, Scopus, and PMC databases was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Manuscripts published in English between 2015 and 2022, reporting on the methodology for creating a tissue-engineered urethra, assessing the regenerative potential of the scaffold in a male animal model, and evaluating the clinical and histological outcomes of treatment, were included. A total of 48 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria, with 12 being eligible for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed no significant benefit of any matrix type in terms of complication rates. However, acellular matrices demonstrated significant advantage over cellular matrices in case of no postoperative stricture formation (odds ratio = 0.06 [95% CI 0.01; 0.23], p p = 0.86). We found that decellularized materials may carry less relevance for ure
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.