Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25689740›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Tissue engineering for human urethral reconstruction: systematic review of recent literature.

Vincent de Kemp, Petra de Graaf, Joost O Fledderus, J L H Ruud Bosch, Laetitia M O de Kort

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tissue engineering of urethra: Systematic review of recent literature.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vincent de KempDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Petra de GraafDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joost O FledderusDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J L H Ruud BoschDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Laetitia M O de KortDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechniques to treat urethral stricture and hypospadias are restricted, as substitution of the unhealthy urethra with tissue from other origins (skin, bladder or buccal mucosa) has some limitations. Therefore, alternative sources of tissue for use in urethral reconstructions are considered, such as ex vivo engineered constructs. PURPOSE: To review recent literature on tissue engineering for human urethral reconstruction.

methodsA search was made in the PubMed and Embase databases restricted to the last 25 years and the English language.

resultsA total of 45 articles were selected describing the use of tissue engineering in urethral reconstruction. The results are discussed in four groups: autologous cell cultures, matrices/scaffolds, cell-seeded scaffolds, and clinical results of urethral reconstructions using these materials. Different progenitor cells were used, isolated from either urine or adipose tissue, but slightly better results were obtained with in vitro expansion of urothelial cells from bladder washings, tissue biopsies from the bladder (urothelium) or the oral cavity (buccal mucosa). Compared with a synthetic scaffold, a biological scaffold has the advantage of bioactive extracellular matrix proteins on its surface. When applied clinically, a non-seeded matrix only seems suited for use as an onlay graft. When a tubularized substitution is the aim, a cell-seeded construct seems more beneficial.

conclusionsConsiderable experience is available with tissue engineering of urethral tissue in vitro, produced with cells of different origin. Clinical and in vivo experiments show promising results.

Indexed as

HumansPlastic Surgery ProceduresTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsUrethra

Identifiers

PMID25689740
PMCPMC4331084
OpenAlexW2089554271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.