Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29562835›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2018

A Guide for Using Mechanical Stimulation to Enhance Tissue-Engineered Articular Cartilage Properties.

Evelia Y Salinas, Jerry C Hu, Kyriacos Athanasiou

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Evelia Y SalinasBiomedical Engineering Department, University of California , Irvine, California.
Jerry C HuBiomedical Engineering Department, University of California , Irvine, California.
Kyriacos AthanasiouBiomedical Engineering Department, University of California , Irvine, California.
University of California System · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of tissue-engineered articular cartilage (TEAC) constructs has the potential to become a powerful treatment option for cartilage lesions resulting from trauma or early stages of pathology. Although fundamental tissue-engineering strategies based on the use of scaffolds, cells, and signals have been developed, techniques that lead to biomimetic AC constructs that can be translated to in vivo use are yet to be fully confirmed. Mechanical stimulation during tissue culture can be an effective strategy to enhance the mechanical, structural, and cellular properties of tissue-engineered constructs toward mimicking those of native AC. This review focuses on the use of mechanical stimulation to attain and enhance the properties of AC constructs needed to translate these implants to the clinic. In vivo, mechanical loading at maximal and supramaximal physiological levels has been shown to be detrimental to AC through the development of degenerative changes. In contrast, multiple studies have revealed that during culture, mechanical stimulation within narrow ranges of magnitude and duration can produce anisotropic, mechanically robust AC constructs with high cellular viability. Significant progress has been made in evaluating a variety of mechanical stimulation techniques on TEAC, either alone or in combination with other stimuli. These advancements include determining and optimizing efficacious loading parameters (e.g., duration and frequency) to yield improvements in construct design criteria, such as collagen II content, compressive stiffness, cell viability, and fiber organization. With the advancement of mechanical stimulation as a potent strategy in AC tissue engineering, a compendium detailing the results achievable by various stimulus regimens would be of great use for researchers in academia and industry. The objective is to list the qualitative and quantitative effects that can be attained when direct compression, hydrostatic pressure, shear, and tensile loading are used to tissue-engineer AC. Our goal is to provide a practical guide to their use and optimization of loading parameters. For each loading condition, we will also present and discuss benefits and limitations of bioreactor configurations that have been used. The intent is for this review to serve as a reference for including mechanical stimulation strategies as part of AC construct culture regimens.

Indexed as

ChondrogenesisStress, MechanicalTissue EngineeringAnimalsCartilage, ArticularHumansarticular cartilagecompressionhydrostatic pressuremechanical stimulationsheartension

Identifiers

PMID29562835
PMCPMC6199627
OpenAlexW2789854659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.