Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31190151›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2020

Tissue engineering of the urethra: where are we in 2019?

Christopher Chapple

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Is regenerative medicine the future of urology?World journal of urology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher ChappleSheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK. c.r.chapple@shef.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2960-9931
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this review is to assess the potential role of tissue engineering for urethral reconstruction. It is well- recognised that urethrotomy remains the first-line therapy in the treatment of urethral stricture. Following on from the randomised study which recommended no difference between urethrotomy and urethral dilation, Steenkamp et al. reported long-term success rates of only 20%. Patients with longer strictures, penile or distal urethral strictures, and extensive periurethral spongiofibrosis typically do not respond well to repeated incisions. This report reviews the potential role of tissue engineering as applied to augmentation urethroplasty, which is the treatment of choice following failed urethrotomy.

methodsA review of the literature was carried out. The principal emphasis was on tissue engineering as applied to augmentation urethroplasty, but an introductory section reviews the use of urethrotomy and the background to contemporary practise with augmentation urethroplasty using oral mucosa.

resultsIt is evident that a cellular matrix which requires the ingrowth of cells is unlikely to be successful except for very short strictures. Other approaches such as injection of stem cells have not been adequately trialled in humans to date. Tissue-engineered substitute for autologous oral mucosa has been used and the results relating to this are reviewed.

conclusionsTissue engineering of autologous tissue for urethroplasty is expensive. It is unnecessary for the majority of cases, but could be potentially useful for very lengthy strictures, for instance, relating to lichen sclerosis. Whilst tissue-engineered oral mucosa has been successfully used, a great deal more work would be necessary to develop an appropriate matrix. Another study has looked at a larger series using an alternative tissue-engineered substitute, but the results have been very disappointing. At present, it has to be concluded that there is no effective and validated tissue engineering solution for the management of urethral stricture disease.

Indexed as

Tissue EngineeringHumansMaleUrethral StrictureUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleOral mucosaTissue engineeringUrethral strictureUrethroplasty

Identifiers

PMID31190151
PMCPMC7423849
OpenAlexW2950577887

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.