ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2015
Supportive features of a new hybrid scaffold for urothelium engineering.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrospinning: Application and Prospects for Urologic Tissue Engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Overview of Urethral Reconstruction by Tissue Engineering: Current Strategies, Clinical Status and Future Direction.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2019Review
- Future Perspectives in Bladder Tissue Engineering.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 2014Article
- Whyever bladder tissue engineering clinical applications still remain unusual even though many intriguing technological advances have been reached?Il Giornale di chirurgiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDifferent clinical conditions can compromise the urinary bladder function and structure. Routine regenerative practices in urology for bladder augmentation have been associated with diverse side effects. The internal lining of the bladder, the urothelium, plays an integral role in normal bladder function. Tissue engineering has provided novel therapeutic strategies through scaffolding and cell transplantation. Nano-scale surface features of scaffolds are valuable parameters for enhancement of cell behavior and function. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe fabricated a new hybrid scaffold of poly ɛ-caprolactone (PCL) and poly-L-lactide acid (PLLA) using an electrospinning system to exploit each polymer's advantages at nano-scale in the same scaffold. Dog urothelial cells were isolated, characterized by immunocytochemistry, and expanded for loading on the scaffold. Cell viability and proliferation on the scaffold surface were assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Furthermore, cytoarchitecture, distribution and detailed morphology of cells, and expression of cell specific markers were examined using hematoxylin and eosin (H + E) staining, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and immunohistochemistry, respectively.
resultsAccording to MTT results, the scaffold did not exert any cytotoxic effect, and also supported cell proliferation and viability for 14 days of culture, which led to a significant increase in the number of cells. Scanning electron microscopy images revealed evenly distributed and normal appearing colonies of urothelial cells. A well-defined layer of cells was observed using H + E staining, which preserved their markers (pan-cytokeratin and uroplakin III) while growing on the scaffold.
conclusionsOur findings confirmed favorable properties of PCL/PLLA regarding biocompatibility and applicability for upcoming new methods of bladder augmentation and engineering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.