Article

A rabbit model to tissue engineer the bladder.

Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology Center, University Medical Center, Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Biomaterials (Impact Factor: 8.31). 05/2004; 25(9):1657-61. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00519-2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A rabbit model was used for the evaluation of a collagen-based biomatrix of small intestinal submucosa (SIS, COOK) in comparison to a biochemically reconstructed biomatrix for bladder tissue regeneration. Rabbits underwent partial cystectomy and cystoplasty with SIS patch graft or with a biochemically defined collagen biomatrix. The grafts of the regenerated bladder wall were harvested at different intervals and tissue regeneration was evaluated. The results of the SIS and biochemically defined biomatrix grafts were comparable. At harvesting, we found five bladder stones and encrustation of the biomatrix in 21/56 animals. No stone formation was observed in the control group. The results of the molecularly defined biomatrix are thus far comparable to SIS. Both matrices show good epithelialization and ingrowth of smooth muscle cells. Both biomatrices show considerable encrustation, which appears to disappear in time. The rabbit model is suitable for bladder tissue engineering studies as it is an easy model to use. In this model, besides tissue regeneration, also some of the clinical problems are seen such as encrustation of foreign body material in the bladder. These aspects are subject for further pre-clinical studies in this animal model.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
82 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tissue engineering is an emerging interdisciplinary field aiming at the restoration or improvement of impaired tissue function. A combination of cells, scaffold materials, engineering methods and biochemical and physiological factors is employed to generate the desired tissue substitute. Scaffolds often play a pivotal role in the engineering process supporting a three-dimensional tissue formation. The ideal scaffold should mimic the native extracellular environment providing mechanical and biological properties to allow cell attachment, migration and differentiation, as well as remodeling by the host organism. The scaffold should be non-immunogenic and should ideally be resorbed by the host over time, leaving behind only the regenerated tissue. More than 40 years ago a preparation of the small intestine was introduced for the replacement of vascular structures. Since then the small intestinal submucosa (SIS) has gained a lot of interest in tissue engineering and subsequent clinical applications as this material exhibits key features of a highly supportive scaffold. This review will focus on the general properties of the SIS and its applications in therapeutical approaches as well as in generating tissue substitutes in vitro. Furthermore, the main problem of tissue engineering, which is the insufficient nourishment of cells within three-dimensional, artificial tissues exceeding certain dimensions is addressed. To solve this issue the implementation of another small intestine derived preparation, the biological vascularized matrix (BioVaM), could be a feasible option. The BioVaM comprises in addition to SIS the arterial and venous mesenteric pedicles and exhibits thereby a perfusable vessel bed which is preserved after decellularization.
    Tissue Engineering Part B Reviews 12/2012; · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intestinal bladder augmentation has more disadvantages. One of the most promising alternative methods is tissue engineering in combination with surgical construction. Small intestine submucosa (SIS) is commonly used materials in tissue engineer. The aim of this study is determine the histologic and functional characteristics of SIS as bladder wall replacement in a rabbit augmentation model.
    BMC Urology 08/2014; 14(1):69. · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(6):e98734. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
1 Download
Available from
Sep 30, 2014