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

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.

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
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 evidence

Browse all related research

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