ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Single-staged in vivo co-transplantation of autologous muscular and urothelial micrografts as a composite tissue tube for urogenital reconstruction.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to: Comment on "Single-staged in vivo co-transplantation of autologous muscular and urothelial micrografts as a composite tissue tube for urogenital reconstruction".Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Comment on "Single-staged in vivo co-transplantation of autologous muscular and urothelial micrografts as a composite tissue tube for urogenital reconstruction".Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTissue-engineered grafts conventionally rely on resource-intensive ex vivo cellularization. Perioperative autologous micrografting allows for direct single-staged graft cellularization omitting laboratory-based in vitro propagation. For urogenital reconstruction, where a muscular layer may be desirable, co-transplanting muscular and urothelial micrografts has previously shown to inhibit urothelial micrograft expansion. This study aimed to assess the effects of adding muscular micrografts in a separate compartment in a tubular collagen-based urinary graft.
methodsAutologous tissue from twelve minipig bladders was used for implanting tubular grafts that were constructed and implanted subcutaneously as a single-staged in vivo procedure. Each animal received four grafts: two containing urothelial micrografts only (urothelial group) and two containing both urothelial and detrusor muscle micrografts (co-transplanted group).
resultsSix weeks post-implantation, 74% of the urothelial group and 64% of the co-transplanted tubular grafts demonstrated luminal pancytokeratin-positive epithelium (p = 0.524). Grafts were analyzed histologically and by immunoassays for identification of epithelium (pancytokeratin), differentiated urothelium (uroplakin II), smooth muscle (α-SMA & desmin), inflammation (CD68 & apoptosis assay), and vascularization (CD31+ vessels). No significant differences in cellular markers or epithelization were observed between groups.
conclusionOur findings indicate that muscular micrografts can be co-transplanted in a separate compartment in a collagen-based tubular graft without inhibiting co-transplanted urothelial micrograft expansion.
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.