Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24066899›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2014

Implantation of in vitro tissue engineered muscle repair constructs and bladder acellular matrices partially restore in vivo skeletal muscle function in a rat model of volumetric muscle loss injury.

Benjamin T Corona, Catherine L Ward, Hannah B Baker, Thomas J Walters, George J Christ

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. CNanomedicine (London, England) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin T Corona1 Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center , Winston Salem, North Carolina.
Catherine L Ward
Hannah B Baker
Thomas J Walters
George J Christ
United States Army Institute of Surgical Research · US

Funding

Studies in Translational Regenerative MedicineT32EB014836 · NIBIB · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ANTHONY ATALA, Victoria Weis · 2013 to 2026
$1.7M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB014836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The frank loss of a large volume of skeletal muscle (i.e., volumetric muscle loss [VML]) can lead to functional debilitation and presents a significant problem to civilian and military medicine. Current clinical treatment for VML involves the use of free muscle flaps and physical rehabilitation; however, neither are effective in promoting regeneration of skeletal muscle to replace the tissue that was lost. Toward this end, skeletal muscle tissue engineering therapies have recently shown great promise in offering an unprecedented treatment option for VML. In the current study, we further extend our recent progress (Machingal et al., 2011, Tissue Eng; Corona et al., 2012, Tissue Eng) in the development of tissue engineered muscle repair (TEMR) constructs (i.e., muscle-derived cells [MDCs] seeded on a bladder acellular matrix (BAM) preconditioned with uniaxial mechanical strain) for the treatment of VML. TEMR constructs were implanted into a VML defect in a tibialis anterior (TA) muscle of Lewis rats and observed up to 12 weeks postinjury. The salient findings of the study were (1) TEMR constructs exhibited a highly variable capacity to restore in vivo function of injured TA muscles, wherein TEMR-positive responders (n=6) promoted an ≈61% improvement, but negative responders (n=7) resulted in no improvement compared to nonrepaired controls, (2) TEMR-positive and -negative responders exhibited differential immune responses that may underlie these variant responses, (3) BAM scaffolds (n=7) without cells promoted an ≈26% functional improvement compared to uninjured muscles, (4) TEMR-positive responders promoted muscle fiber regeneration within the initial defect area, while BAM scaffolds did so only sparingly. These findings indicate that TEMR constructs can improve the in vivo functional capacity of the injured musculature at least, in part, by promoting generation of functional skeletal muscle fibers. In short, the degree of functional recovery observed following TEMR implantation (BAM+MDCs) was 2.3×-fold greater than that observed following implantation of BAM alone. As such, this finding further underscores the potential benefits of including a cellular component in the tissue engineering strategy for VML injury.

Indexed as

Prosthesis ImplantationRecovery of FunctionWound HealingAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalExtracellular MatrixInflammationMaleMuscle, SkeletalRatsRats, Inbred LewRegenerationSus scrofaTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsTorque

Identifiers

PMID24066899
PMCPMC4518882
OpenAlexW2051676953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.