Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26766636›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

New Amniotic Membrane Based Biocomposite for Future Application in Reconstructive Urology.

Jan Adamowicz, Marta Pokrywczyńska, Jakub Tworkiewicz, Tomasz Kowalczyk, Shane V van Breda, Dominik Tyloch, Tomasz Kloskowski, Magda Bodnar, Joanna Skopinska-Wisniewska, Andrzej Marszałek and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Amniotic miracle: Investigating the unique development and applications of amniotic membrane in wound healing.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jan AdamowiczChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Marta PokrywczyńskaChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Jakub TworkiewiczChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Tomasz KowalczykLaboratory of Modeling in Biology and Medicine, Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Shane V van BredaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Dominik TylochChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Tomasz KloskowskiChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Magda BodnarDepartment of Clinical Pathomorphology, Faculty of Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Joanna Skopinska-WisniewskaDepartment of Chemistry of Biomaterials and Cosmetics, Faculty of Chemistry, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Andrzej MarszałekDepartment of Clinical Pathomorphology, Faculty of Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Malgorzata Frontczak-BaniewiczElectron Microscopy Platform, Mossakowski Medical Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw.
Tomasz A KowalewskiDepartment of Mechanics and Physics of Fluids, Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, Poland.
Tomasz DrewaChair of Urology, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Nicolaus Copernicus University · PLInstitute of Fundamental Technological Research · PLMossakowski Medical Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences · PLPolish Academy of Sciences · PLUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDue to the capacity of the amniotic membrane (Am) to support re-epithelisation and inhibit scar formation, Am has a potential to become a considerable asset for reconstructive urology i.e., reconstruction of ureters and urethrae. The application of Am in reconstructive urology is limited due to a poor mechanical characteristic. Am reinforcement with electrospun nanofibers offers a new strategy to improve Am mechanical resistance, without affecting its unique bioactivity profile. This study evaluated biocomposite material composed of Am and nanofibers as a graft for urinary bladder augmentation in a rat model. MATERIAL AND

methodsSandwich-structured biocomposite material was constructed from frozen Am and covered on both sides with two-layered membranes prepared from electrospun poly-(L-lactide-co-E-caprolactone) (PLCL). Wistar rats underwent hemicystectomy and bladder augmentation with the biocomposite material.

resultsImmunohistohemical analysis (hematoxylin and eosin [H&E], anti-smoothelin and Masson's trichrome staining [TRI]) revealed effective regeneration of the urothelial and smooth muscle layers. Anti-smoothelin staining confirmed the presence of contractile smooth muscle within a new bladder wall. Sandwich-structured biocomposite graft material was designed to regenerate the urinary bladder wall, fulfilling the requirements for normal bladder tension, contraction, elasticity and compliance. Mechanical evaluation of regenerated bladder wall conducted based on Young's elastic modulus reflected changes in the histological remodeling of the augmented part of the bladder. The structure of the biocomposite material made it possible to deliver an intact Am to the area for regeneration. An unmodified Am surface supported regeneration of the urinary bladder wall and the PLCL membranes did not disturb the regeneration process.

conclusionsAm reinforcement with electrospun nanofibers offers a new strategy to improve Am mechanical resistance without affecting its unique bioactivity profile.

Indexed as

AmnionGuided Tissue RegenerationTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsUrologic Surgical ProceduresAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCell SurvivalElastic ModulusHumansImmunohistochemistryMechanical PhenomenaMesenchymal Stem CellsRatsUrinary BladderBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID26766636
PMCPMC4713072
OpenAlexW2237111586

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.