Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35388587›Full record

ReviewBJU international2022

Bioengineering solutions for ureteric disorders: clinical need, challenges and opportunities.

Konstantinos Kapetanos, Alexander Light, Niyukta Thakare, Krishnaa Mahbubani, Kasra Saeb-Parsy, Kourosh Saeb-Parsy

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Ureter reconstruction using a biotube in a canine model: A pilot stud.Journal of stem cells & regenerative medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Gelatin-grafted tubular asymmetric scaffolds promote ureteral regenerationFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Konstantinos KapetanosSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0734-3474
Alexander LightDepartment of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-3651
Niyukta ThakareDepartment of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Krishnaa MahbubaniCambridge Biorepository for Translational Medicine (CBTM), NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Kasra Saeb-ParsyDepartment of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Kourosh Saeb-ParsyDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge and Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarise the causes of ureteric damage and the current standard of care, discussing the risks and benefits of available therapeutic options. We then focus on the current and future solutions that can be provided by ureteric bioengineering and provide a description of the ideal characteristics of a bioengineered product.

methodsWe performed a literature search in February 2021 in: Google Scholar, Medline, and Web of Science. Three searches were conducted, investigating: (a) the epidemiology of ureteric pathology, (b) the current standard of care, and (c) the state of the art in ureteric bioengineering.

resultsThe most-common causes of ureteric damage are iatrogenic injury and external trauma. Current approaches to treatment include stent placement or surgical reconstruction. Reconstruction can be done using either urological tissue or segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Limitations include scarring, strictures, and infections. Several bioengineered alternatives have been explored in animal studies, with variations in the choice of scaffold material, cellular seeding populations, and pre-implantation processing. Natural grafts and hybrid material appear to be associated with superior outcomes. Furthermore, seeding of the scaffold material with stem cells or differentiated urothelial cells allows for better function compared to acellular scaffolds. Some studies have attempted to pre-implant the graft in the omentum prior to reconstruction, but this has yet to prove any definitive benefits.

conclusionThere is an unmet clinical need for safer and more effective treatment for ureteric injuries. Urological bioengineering is a promising solution in preclinical studies. However, substantial scientific, logistic, and economic challenges must be addressed to harness its transformative potential in improving outcomes.

Indexed as

UreterUrologic DiseasesAnimalsBioengineeringConstriction, PathologicTreatment Outcomebioengineered solutiontissue engineeringUreteric injuryureteric reconstruction#Urology#UroTrauma

Identifiers

PMID35388587
PMCPMC9544734
OpenAlexW4224271684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.