ReviewSurgery today2018
Regenerative medicine for the esophagus.
Review in Surgery today, 2018. 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.
- Porcine Decellularized Diaphragm Hydrogel: A New Option for Skeletal Muscle Malformations.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Regenerative medicine for the upper gastrointestinal tract.Regenerative therapy · 2020Review
- Tissue engineering of the gastroesophageal junction.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2020Review
- Successful muscle regeneration by a homologous microperforated scaffold seeded with autologous mesenchymal stromal cells in a porcine esophageal substitution model.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in tissue engineering techniques have made it possible to use human cells as biological material. This has enabled pharmacological studies to be conducted to investigate drug effects and toxicity, to clarify the mechanisms underlying diseases, and to elucidate how they compensate for impaired organ function. Many researchers have tried to construct artificial organs using these techniques, but none has succeeded in growing a whole organ. Unlike other digestive organs with complicated functions, such as the processing and absorption of nutrients, the esophagus has the relatively simple function of transporting content, which can be replicated easily by a substitute. In regenerative medicine, various combinations of materials have been applied, including scaffolding, cell sources, and bioreactors. Exciting results of tissue engineering techniques for the esophagus have been reported. In animal models, replacing full-thickness and full-circumferential defects remains challenging because of stenosis and leakage after implantation. Although many reports have manipulated various scaffolds, most have emphasized the importance of both epithelial and mesenchymal cells for the prevention of stenosis. However, the results of repair of partial full-thickness defects and mucosal defects have been promising. Two successful approaches for the replacement of mucosal defects in a clinical setting have been reported, although in contrast to the many animal models, there are few pilot studies in humans. We review the recent results and evaluate the future of regenerative medicine for the esophagus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29214351What 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.