Tissue engineering of urethra: Systematic review of recent literature

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

Abstract (original English)

The purpose of this article was to perform a systematic review of the recent literature on urethral tissue engineering. A total of 31 articles describing the use of tissue engineering for urethra reconstruction were included. The obtained results were discussed in three groups: cells, scaffolds, and clinical results of urethral reconstructions using these components. Stem cells of different origin were used in many experimental studies, but only autologous urothelial cells, fibroblasts, and keratinocytes were applied in clinical trials. Natural and synthetic scaffolds were studied in the context of urethral tissue engineering. The main advantage of synthetic ones is the fact that they can be obtained in unlimited amount and modified by different techniques, but scaffolds of natural origin normally contain chemical groups and bioactive proteins which increase the cell attachment and may promote the cell proliferation and differentiation. The most promising are smart scaffolds delivering different bioactive molecules or those that can be tubularized. In two clinical trials, only onlay-fashioned transplants were used for urethral reconstruction. However, the very promising results were obtained from animal studies where tubularized scaffolds, both non-seeded and cell-seeded, were applied. Impact statement The main goal of this article was to perform a systematic review of the rece

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.

Browse all related research

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