Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMed

Sphincter incontinence: is regenerative medicine the best alternative to restore urinary or anal sphincter function?

Feki A., Faltin DL., Lei T., Dubuisson JB., Jacob S., Irion O.

Narrative Review, published in Int J Biochem Cell Biol (2006) — 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
Int J Biochem Cell Biol (2006)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
17208507
DOI
10.1016/j.biocel.2006.11.001
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Incontinence is a major public health concern in aging societies. It is caused by age-dependent spontaneous apoptosis of muscle cells in the urinary and fecal sphincters, and is aggravated in women due to birth trauma. Compared to other currently employed invasive surgical management techniques associated with morbidity and recurrence, replacement or regeneration of dysfunctional sphincter through stem cell therapy and tissue engineering techniques hold great promise. This review focuses on the pathophysiological analysis of urinary incontinence and the possible application of muscle-derived-stem cells, satellite cells, chondrocytes and adipose-derived-stem cells in restoring sphincter functions.

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
Anal CanalFemaleHumansRecovery of FunctionRegenerative MedicineUrethraUrinary Incontinence

Browse all related research

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