Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39376883›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Advances in Tissue Engineering and Its Future in Regenerative Medicine Compared to Traditional Reconstructive Techniques: A Comparative Analysis.

Christopher R Meretsky, Andreas Polychronis, Dimitria Liovas, Anthony T Schiuma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Christopher R MeretskySurgery, St. George's University School of Medicine, Great River, USA.
Andreas PolychronisGeneral Surgery, St. George's University School of Medicine, Great River, USA.
Dimitria LiovasMedicine, St. George's University School of Medicine, Great River, USA.
Anthony T SchiumaOrthopedic Surgery, Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue engineering represents a revolutionary approach in regenerative medicine, offering promising alternatives to traditional reconstructive techniques. This systematic review explores recent advances in tissue engineering, comparing their efficacy, postoperative outcomes, and patient satisfaction to conventional methods. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, covering studies published from 2000 to 2024. Fourteen studies were selected for final analysis based on inclusion criteria focusing on outcomes such as scar quality, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. The review demonstrated that tissue engineering techniques consistently provided superior cosmetic outcomes with minimal scarring compared to traditional methods. Patients undergoing tissue-engineered procedures experienced mild-to-moderate postoperative pain with rapid resolution, whereas traditional techniques resulted in moderate to severe pain requiring extended management. Furthermore, patients treated with tissue engineering reported high satisfaction rates due to improved cosmetic and functional outcomes. Despite challenges such as ensuring adequate vascularization, controlling scaffold degradation, and overcoming regulatory and cost barriers, ongoing research and development are essential to fully realize the potential of these innovative therapies. Tissue engineering offers significant advantages over traditional reconstructive techniques and has the potential to profoundly improve patient care in regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

bioengineeringbioprintingflapgraftimplantsreconstructive surgeryregenerative medicinescaffoldstem cell therapytissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID39376883
PMCPMC11457798

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.