Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Tissue engineering in reconstructive urology-The current status and critical insights to set future directions-critical review

Ławkowska K., Rosenbaum C., Petrasz P., Kluth L., Koper K., Drewa T.

Narrative Review, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2022) — 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
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36950181
PMCID
PMC10026841
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2022.1040987
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Advanced techniques of reconstructive urology are gradually reaching their limits in terms of their ability to restore urinary tract function and patients' quality of life. A tissue engineering-based approach to urinary tract reconstruction, utilizing cells and biomaterials, offers an opportunity to overcome current limitations. Although tissue engineering studies have been heralding the imminent introduction of this method into clinics for over a decade, tissue engineering is only marginally applied. In this review, we discuss the role of tissue engineering in reconstructive urology and try to answer the question of why such a promising technology has not proven its clinical usability so far.

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

Browse all related research

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