Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Urology was one of the first specialties to report the introduction of regenerative medicine into clinical practice and has been at the forefront of scientific innovation. Despite the scale of investment and research effort, the promise of regenerative medicine remains largely unfulfilled. We review recent developments underpinning the emerging science of regenerative medicine and evaluate critically both the potential for novel regenerative therapies to transform urological practice and the outstanding challenges that remain to be addressed. The term ‘regenerative medicine’ encompasses strategies for restoring or renewing tissue or organ function by: (i) in vivo tissue repair by in‐growth of host cells into an acellular natural or synthetic biomaterial, (ii) implantation of tissue ‘engineered’ in vitro by seeding cultured cells into a biomaterial scaffold, and (iii) therapeutic cloning and stem cell‐based tissue regeneration. In this article, we review recent developments underpinning the emerging science of regenerative medicine and critically assess where successful implementation of novel regenerative medicine approaches into urology practice might genuinely transform the quality of life of affected individuals. We advocate the need for an evidence‐based approach supported by strong science and clinical objectivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wezel et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: