Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31222507›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2020

Review of clinical experience on biomaterials and tissue engineering of urinary bladder.

Michael E Chua, Walid A Farhat, Jessica M Ming, Kurt A McCammon

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Replacement of the bladder: Any news on the horizon?Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Is regenerative medicine the future of urology?World journal of urology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. [Advance in functional bladder engineering].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2020
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael E ChuaEastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Walid A FarhatUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jessica M MingUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Kurt A McCammonEastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA. McCammKa@evms.edu.
Eastern Virginia Medical School · USSt. Luke's Medical Center · PHUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn recent pre-clinical studies, biomaterials and bladder tissue engineering have shown promising outcomes when addressing the need for bladder tissue replacement. To date, multiple clinical experiences have been reported. Herein, we aim to review and summarize the reported clinical experience of biomaterial usage and tissue engineering of the urinary bladder.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed on Feb 2019 to identify clinical reports on biomaterials for urinary bladder replacement or augmentation and clinical experiences with bladder tissue engineering. We identified and reviewed human studies using biomaterials and tissue-engineered bladder as bladder substitutes or augmentation implants. The studies were then summarized for each respective procedure indication, technique, follow-up period, outcome, and important findings of the studies.

resultsAn extensive literature search identified 25 studies of case reports and case series with a cumulative clinical experience of 222 patients. Various biomaterials and tissue-engineered bladder were used, including plastic/polyethylene mold, preserved dog bladder, gelatine sponge, Japanese paper with Nobecutane, lypholized human dura, bovine pericardium, amniotic membrane, small intestinal mucosa, and bladder tissue engineering with autologous cell-seeded biodegradable scaffolds. However, overall clinical experiences including the outcomes and safety reports were not satisfactory enough to replace enterocystoplasty.

conclusionTo date, several clinical experiences of biomaterials and tissue-engineered bladder have been reported; however, various studies have reported non-satisfactory outcomes. Further technological advancements and a better understanding is needed to advance bladder tissue engineering as a future promising management option for patients requiring bladder drainage.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsTissue EngineeringAnimalsHumansTreatment OutcomeUrinary BladderBiocompatible MaterialsBiomaterialsBladder tissue engineeringClinical experienceReview

Identifiers

PMID31222507
OpenAlexW2949332063

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.