Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKapetanos, Konstantinos
dc.contributor.authorLight, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorThakare, Niyukta
dc.contributor.authorMahbubani, Krishnaa
dc.contributor.authorSaeb-Parsy, Kasra
dc.contributor.authorSaeb-Parsy, Kourosh
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-15T15:00:13Z
dc.date.available2022-05-15T15:00:13Z
dc.date.issued2022-04-06
dc.date.submitted2021-09-23
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096
dc.identifier.otherbju15741
dc.identifier.otherbju-2021-1217.r1
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/337177
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To summarise the causes of ureteric damage and the current standard of care, discussing the risks and benefits of available therapeutic options. We then focus on the current and future solutions that can be provided by ureteric bioengineering and provide a description of the ideal characteristics of a bioengineered product. METHODS: We performed a literature search in February 2021 in: Google Scholar, Medline, and Web of Science. Three searches were conducted, investigating: (a) the epidemiology of ureteric pathology, (b) the current standard of care, and (c) the state of the art in ureteric bioengineering. RESULTS: The most-common causes of ureteric damage are iatrogenic injury and external trauma. Current approaches to treatment include stent placement or surgical reconstruction. Reconstruction can be done using either urological tissue or segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Limitations include scarring, strictures, and infections. Several bioengineered alternatives have been explored in animal studies, with variations in the choice of scaffold material, cellular seeding populations, and pre-implantation processing. Natural grafts and hybrid material appear to be associated with superior outcomes. Furthermore, seeding of the scaffold material with stem cells or differentiated urothelial cells allows for better function compared to acellular scaffolds. Some studies have attempted to pre-implant the graft in the omentum prior to reconstruction, but this has yet to prove any definitive benefits. CONCLUSION: There is an unmet clinical need for safer and more effective treatment for ureteric injuries. Urological bioengineering is a promising solution in preclinical studies. However, substantial scientific, logistic, and economic challenges must be addressed to harness its transformative potential in improving outcomes.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.subjectReviews
dc.subjectUreteric injury
dc.subjectureteric reconstruction
dc.subjecttissue engineering
dc.subjectbioengineered solution
dc.subject#UroTrauma
dc.subject#Urology
dc.titleBioengineering solutions for ureteric disorders: clinical need, challenges and opportunities.
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2022-05-15T15:00:12Z
prism.publicationNameBJU Int
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.84596
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-03-28
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/bju.15741
rioxxterms.versionAO
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidKapetanos, Konstantinos [0000-0002-0734-3474]
dc.contributor.orcidLight, Alexander [0000-0001-7246-3651]
dc.identifier.eissn1464-410X
cam.issuedOnline2022-05-15


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record