ReviewMaterials today. Bio2025
Recent advances and future directions in urinary system tissue engineering.
Review in Materials today. Bio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart functionalized cartilage repair microspheres: Concepts and applications.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- The engineered bladder patch with a three-layer structure promotes the regeneration and functional recovery of the bladder in a rabbit model.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
- Structural and functional evolution of IL-1 targeting: From systemic neutralization to bioengineered nanotherapies.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Regenerative Medicine Approaches to Stress Urinary Incontinence.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Isolation and characterization of epithelial cells and fibroblasts from the human penile urethra.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Medical embryology and regenerative medicine: research and applications in clinical practice.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Therapeutic advances in ureteral stricture: lessons from radiation-induced fibrosis to regenerative strategies-a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advancements in tissue engineering offer promising solutions for the repair and reconstruction of the urinary system, particularly in cases of urinary organ injuries. Historically, autologous tissue grafts and allografts have been the primary options for repairing damaged tissues. However, these approaches often lead to complications such as immune rejection, donor site morbidity, and functional limitations. Tissue engineering provides a more sustainable alternative by leveraging the potential of cells, bioactive scaffolds, and growth factors to regenerate and repair damaged tissues. This approach aims not only to restore tissue structure but also to enhance functional recovery. Key challenges in the field include achieving adequate vascularization, overcoming immune responses, and ensuring long-term tissue integration. Recent innovations, such as 3D bioprinting, stem cell-based therapies, and the development of novel biomaterials, show great promise in addressing these challenges. This review explores the current state of tissue engineering applications in the urological system, focusing on the regeneration of the bladder, urethra, and kidneys. We discuss recent breakthroughs, ongoing clinical trials, and emerging technologies, as well as the potential for these approaches to improve clinical outcomes. Finally, we outline critical future directions of tissue engineering in urology, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to overcome existing barriers and accelerate clinical translation.
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.