Tissue Engineering in Animal Models for Urinary Diversion: A Systematic Review

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 9; no. 6; p. e98734
• Main Authors: Sloff, Marije, de Vries, Rob, Geutjes, Paul, IntHout, Joanna, Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel, Oosterwijk, Egbert, Feitz, Wout
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 25.06.2014; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Animal experimentation; Animal models; Animal species; Animals; Biological products; Biology and Life Sciences; Biomaterials; Biomedical materials; Bladder; Bypasses; Empirical analysis; Engineering; Experimentation; Feasibility studies; Heterogeneity; Humans; Laboratory animals; Life sciences; Medicine and Health Sciences; Meta-analysis; Models, Animal; Ostomy; Physical Sciences; Predictive control; Regenerative medicine; Research and Analysis Methods; Species Specificity; Surgery; Systematic review; Tissue engineering; Tissue Engineering - methods; Urinary Diversion - adverse effects; Urinary Diversion - methods; Urology
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098734

Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) approaches may provide alternatives for gastrointestinal tissue in urinary diversion. To continue to clinically translatable studies, TERM alternatives need to be evaluated in (large) controlled and standardized animal studies. Here, we investigated all evidence for the efficacy of tissue engineered constructs in animal models for urinary diversion. Studies investigating this subject were identified through a systematic search of three different databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science). From each study, animal characteristics, study characteristics and experimental outcomes for meta-analyses were tabulated. Furthermore, the reporting of items vital for study replication was assessed. The retrieved studies (8 in total) showed extreme heterogeneity in study design, including animal models, biomaterials and type of urinary diversion. All studies were feasibility studies, indicating the novelty of this field. None of the studies included appropriate control groups, i.e. a comparison with the classical treatment using GI tissue. The meta-analysis showed a trend towards successful experimentation in larger animals although no specific animal species could be identified as the most suitable model. Larger animals appear to allow a better translation to the human situation, with respect to anatomy and surgical approaches. It was unclear whether the use of cells benefits the formation of a neo urinary conduit. The reporting of the methodology and data according to standardized guidelines was insufficient and should be improved to increase the value of such publications. In conclusion, animal models in the field of TERM for urinary diversion have probably been chosen for reasons other than their predictive value. Controlled and comparative long term animal studies, with adequate methodological reporting are needed to proceed to clinical translatable studies. This will aid in good quality research with the reduction in the use of animals and an increase in empirical evidence of biomedical research.