Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34853096›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2021

Crosslink bio-adhesives for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction: current status and future direction.

Mugdha M Joglekar, Dirk-Jan Slebos, Jeroen Leijten, Janette K Burgess, Simon D Pouwels

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Surgical and bronchoscopic pulmonary function-improving procedures in lung emphysema.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

Mugdha M JoglekarUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dept of Pathology and Medical Biology, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Dirk-Jan SlebosUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dept of Pulmonary Diseases, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9555-3422
Jeroen LeijtenDept of BioEngineering, TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Janette K BurgessUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dept of Pathology and Medical Biology, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9868-9966
Simon D PouwelsUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dept of Pathology and Medical Biology, Groningen, The Netherlands s.d.pouwels@umcg.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-8061

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) treatments have been developed to reduce hyperinflation in emphysema patients. Lung bio-adhesives are among the most promising new BLVR treatment options, as they potentially provide a permanent solution for emphysematous patients after only a single application. To date, bio-adhesives have mainly been used as haemostats and tissue sealants, while their application in permanently contracting and sealing hyperinflated lung tissue has recently been identified as a novel and enticing opportunity. However, a major drawback of the current adhesive technology is the induction of severe inflammatory responses and adverse events upon administration. In our review, we distinguish between and discuss various natural, semi-synthetic and synthetic tissue haemostats and sealants that have been used for pulmonary applications such as sealing air/fluid leaks. Furthermore, we present an overview of the different materials including AeriSeal and autologous blood that have been used to achieve lung volume reduction and discuss their respective advantages and drawbacks. In conclusion, we describe the key biological (therapeutic benefit and biocompatibility) and biomechanical (degradability, adhesive strength, stiffness, viscoelasticity, tunability and self-healing capacity) characteristics that are essential for an ideal lung bio-adhesive material with the potential to overcome the concerns related to current adhesives.

Indexed as

PneumonectomyPulmonary EmphysemaAdhesivesBronchoscopyHumansLungAdhesives

Identifiers

PMID34853096
PMCPMC9488910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.