4.4 Review

Tissue engineered biological augmentation for tendon healing: a systematic review

期刊

BRITISH MEDICAL BULLETIN
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 31-59

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldq030

关键词

tendon; tendon healing; growth factors; gene therapy; biologic augmentation; mesenchimal stem cells; sports; athletes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Tendon injuries give rise to significant morbidity. In the last few decades, several techniques have been increasingly used to optimize tendon healing. Sources of data: We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL and Embase databases using various combinations of the commercial names of each scaffold and the keywords 'tendon', 'rotator cuff', 'supraspinatus tendon', 'Achilles tendon', 'growth factors', 'cytokines', 'gene therapy', 'tissue engineering', 'mesenchymal' and 'stem cells' over the years 1966-2009. All articles relevant to the subject were retrieved, and their bibliographies were hand searched for further references in the context to tissue-engineered biological augmentation for tendon healing. Areas of agreement: Several new techniques are available for tissue-engineered biological augmentation for tendon healing, growth factors, gene therapy and mesenchimal stem cells. Areas of controversy: Data are lacking to allow definitive conclusions on the use of these techniques for routine management of tendon ailments. Growing points: The emerging field of tissue engineering holds the promise to use new techniques for tendon augmentation and repair. Preliminary studies support the idea that these techniques can provide an alternative for tendon augmentation with great therapeutic potential. Areas timely for developing research: The optimization strategies discussed in this article are currently at an early stage of development. Although these emerging technologies may develop into substantial clinical treatment options, their full impact needs to be critically evaluated in a scientific fashion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据