Tissue engineering of urinary bladder - current state of art and future perspectives
Adamowicz J., Kowalczyk T., Drewa T.
Narrative Review, published in Cent European J Urol (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Cent European J Urol (2013)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 24579029
- PMCID
- PMC3936152
- DOI
- 10.5173/ceju.2013.02.art23
- Citations
- 33
Abstract (original English)
Introduction Tissue engineering and biomaterials science currently offer the technology needed to replace the urinary tract wall. This review addresses current achievements and barriers for the regeneration of the urinary blad- der based on tissue engineering methods. Materials and methods Medline was search for urinary bladder tissue engineering regenerative medicine and stem cells. Results Numerous studies to develop a substitute for the native urinary bladder wall us- ing the tissue engineering approach are ongoing. Stem cells combined with biomaterials open new treatment methods, including even de novo urinary bladder construction. However, there are still many issues before advances in tissue engineering can be introduced for clinical application. Conclusions Before tissue engineering techniques could be recognize as effective and safe for patients, more research stud- ies performed on large animal models and with long follow-up are needed to carry on in the future.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.