ReviewNature reviews. Urology2019
Towards clinical application of tissue engineering for erectile penile regeneration.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances and future directions in urinary system tissue engineering.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Corpus cavernosum and tunica albuginea reconstruction by tissue engineering: towards functional erectile structures regeneration.BMC urology · 2024Review
- Tissue Engineering for Penile Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Advanced hydrogels: New expectation for the repair of organic erectile dysfunction.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- Biomaterial strategies for the application of reproductive tissue engineering.Bioactive materials · 2022Review
- Constructing a heparin-modified penile decellularized scaffold to improve re-endothelialization in organizational reconstruction.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile wounds after traumatic and surgical amputation require reconstruction in the form of autologous tissue transfers. However, currently used techniques are associated with high infection rates, implant erosion and donor site morbidity. The use of tissue-engineered neocorpora provides an alternative treatment option. Contemporary tissue-engineering strategies enable the seeding of a biomaterial scaffold and subsequent implantation to construct a neocorpus. Tissue engineering of penile tissue should focus on two main strategies: first, correcting the volume deficit for structural integrity in order to enable urinary voiding in the standing position and second, achieving erectile function for sexual activity. The functional outcomes of the neocorpus can be addressed by optimizing the use of stem cells and scaffolds, or alternatively, the use of gene therapy. Current research in penile tissue engineering is largely restricted to rodent and rabbit models, but the use of larger animal models should be considered as a better representation of the anatomical and physiological function in humans. The development of a cell-seeded scaffold to achieve and maintain erection continues to be a considerable challenge in humans. However, advances in penile tissue engineering show great promise and, in combination with gene therapy and surgical techniques, have the potential to substantially improve patient outcomes.
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.