SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Stem cell therapy for bladder regeneration: A comprehensive systematic review.

Faegh A., Jahani S., Chinisaz F., Baghaei H., Majidi Zolbin M.

Systematic Review on Hair & Scalp, published in Regen Ther (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Systematic Review
Journal
Regen Ther (2025)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
PMID
39811066
DOI
10.1016/j.reth.2024.12.005

Abstract (original English)

Tissue engineering has been considered a potential choice for urinary system reconstruction. Here, we aim to a broad spectrum of employed stem cells in bladder regeneration by performing a comprehensive systematic review. In January 2024, we searched Scopus, PubMed, and Embase databases for studies that tried bladder regeneration by tissue engineering using stem cells. We excluded non-English studies, review articles, and manuscripts that met the other exclusion criteria. Among 43 included studies, comparative studies demonstrated the similar or superior potentiality of stem cells to regenerate tissues and improve bladder function compared with autologous cells. Furthermore, data suggest an increased use of bio-synthetic scaffolds and their appropriate bio-compatibility with stem cells. The evidence establishes that adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells are the most frequently used stem cells. And both are suitable for urothelium and smooth muscle formation along with the capability of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for lamina propria formation. Additionally, the competency of smooth muscle-derived progenitor cells, urine-derived stem cells, umbilical mesenchymal SCs for smooth muscle and urothelium regeneration, and the capability of hair follicle stem cells for smooth muscle formation are demonstrated. Also, the superiority of endothelial

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 evidence
Hair & Scalp
View on PubMedDOI

Related research