Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Tissue engineering for human urethral reconstruction: systematic review of recent literature

de Kemp V., de Graaf P., Fledderus JO., Ruud Bosch JL., de Kort LM.

Systematic Review on Face & Skin, published in PLoS One (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
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
Systematic Review
Journal
PLoS One (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
25689740
PMCID
PMC4331084
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0118653
Citations
56

Abstract (original English)

Background Techniques to treat urethral stricture and hypospadias are restricted, as substitution of the unhealthy urethra with tissue from other origins (skin, bladder or buccal mucosa) has some limitations. Therefore, alternative sources of tissue for use in urethral reconstructions are considered, such as ex vivo engineered constructs. Purpose To review recent literature on tissue engineering for human urethral reconstruction. Methods A search was made in the PubMed and Embase databases restricted to the last 25 years and the English language. Results A total of 45 articles were selected describing the use of tissue engineering in urethral reconstruction. The results are discussed in four groups: autologous cell cultures, matrices/scaffolds, cell-seeded scaffolds, and clinical results of urethral reconstructions using these materials. Different progenitor cells were used, isolated from either urine or adipose tissue, but slightly better results were obtained with in vitro expansion of urothelial cells from bladder washings, tissue biopsies from the bladder (urothelium) or the oral cavity (buccal mucosa). Compared with a synthetic scaffold, a biological scaffold has the advantage of bioactive extracellular matrix proteins on its surface. When applied clinically, a non-seeded matrix only seems suited for use as an onlay graft. When a tubularized substitution is the aim, a cell

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
UrethraHumansTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsPlastic Surgery Procedures

Browse all related research

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

Related research