ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2018
Comparison of Different In Vivo Incubation Sites to Produce Tissue-Engineered Small Intestine.
Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autogenic-regenerated intestinal transplantation improves outcomes in short bowel syndrome.JCI insight · 2026Article
- Development of a novel tubular scaffold for tissue-engineered small intestine.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2026Article
- Intestinal Models for Personalized Medicine: from Conventional Models to Microfluidic Primary Intestine-on-a-chip.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2022Review
- Building gut from scratch - progress and update of intestinal tissue engineering.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Review
- Pre-Vascularized Electrospun Graphene Oxide-Gelatin Chamber for Intestinal Wall Defect Repair.International journal of nanomedicine · 2022Article
- A Comparison of Sterilization Techniques for Production of Decellularized Intestine in Mice.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2020Article
- Production of Tissue-Engineered Small Intestine in Rats with Different Ages of Cell Donors.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2019Article
- Gut bioengineering promotes gut repair and pharmaceutical research: a review.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the impact of different in vivo incubation sites on the production of tissue-engineered small intestine (TESI). MATERIALS AND
methodsGreen fluorescent protein transgenic rat pups (3-5 days) were used as donors of intestinal organoids. Harvested intestine was exposed to enzymatic digestion to release intestinal stem cell-containing organoids. Organoids were purified, concentrated, and seeded onto tubular polyglycolic acid scaffolds. Seeded scaffolds were implanted in each of five locations in recipient female nude rats: wrapped with omentum, wrapped with intestinal mesentery, wrapped with uterine horn membrane, attached to the abdominal wall, and inserted into the subcutaneous space. After 4 weeks of in vivo incubation, specimens from each site were explanted for evaluation.
resultsWrapping seeded scaffolds with vascularized membranes produced TESI with variable lengths of vascularized pedicles, with the longest pedicle length from uterine horn membrane, the shortest pedicle length from intestinal mesentery, and intermediate length from omentum. The quantity of TESI, as expressed by volume and neomucosal length, was identical in TESI produced by wrapping with any of the three membranes. The smallest quantity of TESI was found in TESI produced from insertion into the subcutaneous space, with an intermediate quantity of TESI produced from attachment to the abdominal wall. Periodic acid-Schiff and immunofluorescence (IF) staining confirmed the presence of all intestinal epithelial cell lineages in TESI produced at all incubation sites. Additional IF staining demonstrated the presence of enteric nervous system components and blood vessels. Wrapping of seeded scaffolds with vascularized membranes significantly increased the density of blood vessels in the TESI produced.
conclusionWrapping of seeded scaffolds in vascularized membranes produced the largest quantity and highest quality of TESI. Attaching seeded scaffolds to the abdominal wall produced an intermediate quantity of TESI, but the quality was still comparable to TESI produced in vascularized membranes. Insertion of seeded scaffolds into the subcutaneous space produced the smallest quantity and lowest quality of TESI. In summary, wrapping seeded scaffolds with vascularized membranes is favorable for the production of TESI, and wrapping with omentum may produce TESI that is most easily anastomosed with host intestine.
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.