Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37171579›Full record

ArticleBioprocess and biosystems engineering2023

Comparison of the biological properties between 3D-printed and decellularized tracheal grafts.

Yao Wang, Jianfeng Li, Jun Qian, Yunhao Sun, Jianning Xu, Jian Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioprocess and biosystems engineering, 2023. 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. [Application and challenges of tissue engineered scaffolds in treatment of long-segment laryngotracheal stenosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors.

Yao Wang *Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Yancheng, 224005, China.
Jianfeng Li *Yizheng Hospital, Drum Tower Hospital Group of Nanjing, Yizheng, 211900, China.
Jun QianDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Yancheng, 224005, China.
Yunhao SunDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Yancheng, 224005, China.
Jianning XuDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Yancheng, 224005, China.
Jian SunDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Yancheng, 224005, China. 15895191698@163.com.

Funding

Medical Research Project of Jiangsu Commission of Health Z2020008Program of Medical Science and Technology in Yancheng YK2019001Talent Support Project of Jiangsu Association for Science and Technology 2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study sought to characterize the differences between the 3D-printed and decellularized tracheal grafts, providing the basis for the synthesis of the more reasonable and effective tissue-engineered trachea. We compared the biomechanical properties and biocompatibility of the 3D-printed tracheal graft and decellularized tracheal graft in vitro and evaluated the biocompatibility, immune rejection and inflammation of the two materials through in vivo implantation experiments. Compared with the decellularized tracheal graft, the 3D-printed tracheal graft was associated with obviously higher biomechanical properties. The results demonstrated enhanced growth of BMSCs in the decellularized tracheal graft compared to the 3D-printed one when co-culture with two tracheal graft groups. Moreover, the CCK-8 assay demonstrated significant cell proliferation on the decellularized tracheal graft. Serum IgG and IgM measured in vivo by implantation testing indicated that the 3D-Printed tracheal graft exhibited the most significant inflammatory response. HE staining indicated that the inflammatory response in the 3D-printed tracheal graft consisted mainly of eosinophils, while little inflammatory cell infiltrates were observed in the decellularized tracheal graft. CD68 immunohistochemical analysis indicated that the infiltration of macrophages was not significant in both tracheal grafts. Our findings suggest that the biomechanical properties of the 3D-printed tracheal grafts are better than the decellularized tracheal grafts. Nonetheless, the decellularized tracheal graft exhibited better biocompatibility than the 3D-printed tracheal graft.

Indexed as

Tissue ScaffoldsTracheaCoculture TechniquesPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue Engineering3D-Printed tracheal graftBiocompatibilityBiomechanical propertyDecellularized tracheal graftTissue-engineered trachea

Identifiers

PMID37171579
PMCPMC10239374

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.