Biofabrication and biomaterials for urinary tract reconstruction

Figures & data

Table 1 Contemporary reconstructive approaches for management of different urinary tract pathologies

Hollow urinary tract organs	The commonest pathologies	Gold standard reconstructive techniques	Autologous non-urinary tissues	Limitations of autologous tissues
Urethra	1. Urethral stricture^Citation165 2. Complicated hypospadias^Citation166,Citation168	Urethroplasty^Citation168^–^Citation171	1. Oral mucosal grafts (buccal and lingual)^Citation172,Citation173 2. Local skin flaps and skin grafts^Citation173	Oral mucosal grafts^Citation174,Citation176 1. Donor site morbidity 2. Pain, bleeding, and infection 3. Parotid duct injury 4. Graft contracture 5. Oral numbness
Urinary bladder	1. Bladder cancer 2. Neurogenic bladder dysfunction 3. Detrusor overactivity 4. Chronic inflammations and granulomas^Citation177	1. Radical cystectomy and urinary diversion^Citation178 2. Augmentation or substitution cystoplasty^Citation179,Citation181	Intestinal segments^Citation181,Citation183	Intestine^Citation176 1. Metabolic disturbances 2. Renal function deterioration 3. Bacteriuria 4. Mucous overproduction 5. Stones 6. Perforation 7. VUR 8. Carcinoma
Ureter	1. Iatrogenic injuries 2. Ureteric strictures 3. Ureteric tumors	Depending on the anatomical part (upper, middle, and lower) and the extent of damage:^Citation184 1. Ureteroureterostomy 2. Transureteroureterostomy 3. Ureterocalycostomy 4. Boari flap 5. Psoas hitch 6. Autotransplantation 7. Ileal substitution	Intestinal segments^Citation23,Citation185

Abbreviation: VUR, esicoureteral reflux.

Figure 1 Approaches for biomaterial fabrication.

Note: This figure illustrates the different approaches for fabrication of biomaterials.
Abbreviation: 3D, three-dimensional.

Table 2 Summary of the properties of the ideal biomaterial for urinary tract reconstruction

General properties	Urinary-specific properties
1. Biocompatible 2. Biodegradable 3. Promotes vascular and nerve regeneration 4. Promotes cellular differentiation 5. Not toxic to the cells 6. Not carcinogenic 7. Unlimited supply 8. Cost-effective 9. Tailor-made physical and mechanical properties	1. Stretchable 2. Shape memory (regains its shape) 3. Soft 4. Watertight 5. Resists encrustations 6. Resists biofilm formation

WangXYanYZhangRRecent trends and challenges in complex organ manufacturingTissue Eng B Rev2010162189197

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MundyARAndrichDEUrethral stricturesBJU Int2011107162621176068

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MundyARFailed hypospadias repair presenting in adultsEur Urol200649577477616564128

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KuoTLVenugopalSInmanRDChappleCRSurgical tips and tricks during urethroplasty for bulbar urethral strictures focusing on accurate localisation of the stricture: results from a tertiary centreEur Urol201567476477025578622

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LumenNVierstraete-VerlindeSOosterlinckWBuccal versus lingual mucosa graft in anterior urethroplasty: a prospective comparison of surgical outcome and donor site morbidityJ Urol201619511211726241906

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MangeraAPattersonJMChappleCRA systematic review of graft augmentation urethroplasty techniques for the treatment of anterior urethral stricturesEur Urol201159579781421353379

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LumenNOosterlinckWHoebekePUrethral reconstruction using buccal mucosa or penile skin grafts: systematic review and meta-analysisUrol Int201289438739422889835

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WoodDNAllenSEAndrichDEGreenwellTJMundyARThe morbidity of buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty and the effect of nonclosure of the graft harvest site on postoperative painJ Urol2004172258058315247736

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BiersSMVennSNGreenwellTJThe past, present and future of augmentation cystoplastyBJU Int201210991280129322117733

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CodyJDNabiGDublinNUrinary diversion and bladder reconstruction/replacement using intestinal segments for intractable incontinence or following cystectomyCochrane Database Syst Rev20122CD003306

 Google Scholar

LeeRKAbol-EneinHArtibaniWUrinary diversion after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: options, patient selection, and outcomesBJU Int20141131112324330062

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SteinRKamalMMRubenwolfPZieselCSchroderAThuroffJWBladder augmentation using bowel segments (enterocystoplasty)BJU Int201211071078109422954030

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SteinRSchröderAThüroffJWBladder augmentation and urinary diversion in patients with neurogenic bladder: surgical considerationsJ Pediatr Urol20128215316122264521

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

KnightRBHudakSJMoreyAFStrategies for open reconstruction of upper ureteral stricturesUrol Clin North Am201340335136123905933

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DahmsSEPiechotaHJDahiyaRLueTFTanaghoEAComposition and biomechanical properties of the bladder acellular matrix graft: comparative analysis in rat, pig and humanBr J Urol19988234114199772881

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ali-el-DeinBGhoneimMABridging long ureteral defects using the Yang-Monti principleJ Urol200316931074107712576849

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar