Tissue engineering of the bladder--reality or myth? A systematic review
SourceJournal of Urology, 192, 4, (2014), pp. 1035-1042
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Central Animal Laboratory
Journal of Urology
SubjectRadboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIMLS: Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences; Radboudumc 15: Urological cancers RIMLS: Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences
PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed preclinical studies in the literature to evaluate the potential of tissue engineering of the bladder. Study outcomes were compared to the available clinical evidence to assess the feasibility of tissue engineering for future clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preclinical studies of tissue engineering for bladder augmentation were identified through a systematic search of PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1980 to January 1, 2014. Primary studies in English were included if bladder reconstruction after partial cystectomy was performed using a tissue engineered biomaterial in any animal species, with cystometric bladder capacity as an outcome measure. Outcomes were compared to clinical studies available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and published clinical studies. RESULTS: A total of 28 preclinical studies are included, demonstrating remarkable heterogeneity in study characteristics and design. Studies in which preoperative bladder volumes were compared to postoperative volumes were considered the most clinically relevant (18 studies). Bladder augmentation through tissue engineering resulted in a normal bladder volume in healthy animals, with the influence of a cellular component being negligible. Furthermore, experiments in large animal models (pigs and dogs) approximated the desired bladder volume more accurately than in smaller species. The initial clinical experience was based on seemingly predictive healthy animal models with a promising outcome. Unfortunately these results were not substantiated in all clinical trials, revealing dissimilar outcomes in different clinical/disease backgrounds. Thus, the translational predictability of a model using healthy animals might be questioned. CONCLUSIONS: Through this systematic approach we present an unbiased overview of all published preclinical studies investigating the effect of bladder tissue engineering on cystometric bladder capacity. Preclinical research in healthy animals appears to show the feasibility of bladder augmentation by tissue engineering. However, in view of the disappointing clinical results based on healthy animal models new approaches should also be evaluated in preclinical models using dysfunctional/diseased bladders. This endeavor may aid in the development of clinically applicable tissue engineered bladder augmentation with satisfactory long-term outcome.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.