Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28280722›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2017

Tissue-Engineered Solutions in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Principles and Practice.

Sarah Al-Himdani, Zita M Jessop, Ayesha Al-Sabah, Emman Combellack, Amel Ibrahim, Shareen H Doak, Andrew M Hart, Charles W Archer, Catherine A Thornton, Iain S Whitaker

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Advancements in Functional Polymeric Scaffolds for Scar-Free Skin Regeneration.Polymer science & technology (Washington, D.C.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Tissue engineering in otorhinolaryngology: A knowledge-based analysis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Al-HimdaniReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
Zita M JessopReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
Ayesha Al-SabahReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School , Swansea , UK.
Emman CombellackReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
Amel IbrahimReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK; Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Shareen H DoakReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; In Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Andrew M HartCanniesburn Plastic Surgery Unit, Centre for Cell Engineering, University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK.
Charles W ArcherReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; Cartilage Biology Research Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Catherine A ThorntonReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; Human Immunology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Iain S WhitakerReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK; The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
Swansea University · GBMorriston Hospital · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N002431/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in microsurgery, imaging, and transplantation have led to significant refinements in autologous reconstructive options; however, the morbidity of donor sites remains. This would be eliminated by successful clinical translation of tissue-engineered solutions into surgical practice. Plastic surgeons are uniquely placed to be intrinsically involved in the research and development of laboratory engineered tissues and their subsequent use. In this article, we present an overview of the field of tissue engineering, with the practicing plastic surgeon in mind. The Medical Research Council states that regenerative medicine and tissue engineering "holds the promise of revolutionizing patient care in the twenty-first century." The UK government highlighted regenerative medicine as one of the key eight great technologies in their industrial strategy worthy of significant investment. The long-term aim of successful biomanufacture to repair composite defects depends on interdisciplinary collaboration between cell biologists, material scientists, engineers, and associated medical specialties; however currently, there is a current lack of coordination in the field as a whole. Barriers to translation are deep rooted at the basic science level, manifested by a lack of consensus on the ideal cell source, scaffold, molecular cues, and environment and manufacturing strategy. There is also insufficient understanding of the long-term safety and durability of tissue-engineered constructs. This review aims to highlight that individualized approaches to the field are not adequate, and research collaboratives will be essential to bring together differing areas of expertise to expedite future clinical translation. The use of tissue engineering in reconstructive surgery would result in a paradigm shift but it is important to maintain realistic expectations. It is generally accepted that it takes 20-30 years from the start of basic science research to clinical utility, demonstrated by contemporary treatments such as bone marrow transplantation. Although great advances have been made in the tissue engineering field, we highlight the barriers that need to be overcome before we see the routine use of tissue-engineered solutions.

Indexed as

barriers to translationbioengineeringplastic and reconstructive surgeryregenerative medicinestem cellstissue engineeringtranslationtranslational research

Identifiers

PMID28280722
PMCPMC5322281
OpenAlexW2602313127

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.