Therapeutic Applications of 3D Bioprinting in Surgery for Female Reproductive Tract Disorders: A Systematic Review
Gómez-Abellán J., López-Flores R., Sánchez-Margallo JA., Sánchez-Mateos S., Sánchez-Margallo FM.
Systematic Review, published in Polymers (Basel) (2025) — 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Polymers (Basel) (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41304375
- PMCID
- PMC12656174
- DOI
- 10.3390/polym17223010
Abstract (original English)
Three-dimensional printing has been progressively integrated into various industries, particularly the medical sector, where its significance in tissue engineering for transplantation is growing exponentially. The purpose of this systematic review is to ascertain whether the bioprinting of scaffolds holds the potential to provide treatment for pathologies within the female reproductive system. The inclusion criteria applied were the bioimprinting of the ovary, uterus, endometrium, or vagina, intended for surgical implantation in the patient. Articles employing printing methods that do not incorporate cells embedded in the material, those that generate tissue other than that of the female reproductive system, and those that print structures with in vitro applications were excluded from the review. The search for relevant articles was conducted until 3 April 2025. After analyzing 667 articles extracted from PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, 13 articles were included in this review. The analysis of the results encompassed aspects related to the bioprinting technology employed, the hydrogels and cells utilized, as well as the bioprinted structure and the corresponding target tissue. Few studies investigated the creation of a multicellular scaffold and in none of the cases was it implanted in a large animal model, only in murine and rabbit models. These articles reaffirm the feasib
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.