Vaginoplasty is a surgical solution to multiple disorders, including Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome and male-to-female gender dysphoria. Using nonvaginal tissues for these reconstructions is associated with many complications, and autologous vaginal tissue may not be sufficient. The potential of tissue engineering for vaginoplasty was studied through a systematic bibliography search. Cell types, biomaterials, and signaling factors were analyzed by investigating advantages, disadvantages, complications, and research quantity.
Search Methods:
A systematic search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus until March 8, 2022. Term combinations for tissue engineering, guided tissue regeneration, regenerative medicine, and tissue scaffold were applied, together with vaginoplasty and neovagina. The snowball method was performed on references and a Google Scholar search on the first 200 hits. Original research articles on human and/or animal subjects that met the inclusion (reconstruction of vaginal tissue and tissue engineering method) and no exclusion criteria (not available as full text; written in foreign language; nonoriginal study article; genital surgery other than neovaginal reconstruction; and vaginal reconstruction with autologous or allogenic tissue without tissue engineering or scaffold) were assessed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist were used to evaluate article quality and bias.
Outcomes:
A total of 31 out of 1569 articles were included. Data extraction was based on cell origin and type, biomaterial nature and composition, host species, number of hosts and controls, neovaginal size, replacement fraction, and signaling factors. An overview of used tissue engineering methods for neovaginal formation was created, showing high variance of cell types, biomaterials, and signaling factors and the same topics were rarely covered multiple times. Autologous vaginal cells and extracellular matrix-based biomaterials showed preferential properties, and stem cells carry potential. However, quality confirmation of orthotopic cell-seeded acellular vaginal matrix by clinical trials is needed as well as exploration of signaling factors for vaginoplasty.
Impact statement
General article quality was weak to sufficient due to unreported cofounders and incomplete animal study descriptions. Article quality and heterogenicity made identification of optimal cell types, biomaterials, or signaling factors unreliable. However, trends showed that autologous cells prevent complications and compatibility issues such as healthy cell destruction, whereas stem cells prevent cross talk (interference of signaling pathways by signals from other cell types) and rejection (but need confirmation testing beyond animal trials). Natural (orthotopic) extracellular matrix biomaterials have great preferential properties that encourage future research, and signaling factors for vascularization are important for tissue engineering of full-sized neovagina.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PatraS, YoungV. A review of 3D printing techniques and the future in biofabrication of bioprinted tissue. Cell Biochem Biophys, 2016; 74(2):93–98; doi: 10.1007/s12013-016-0730-0.
2.
KroezeR, HelderMN, RoosW, et al.The effect of ethylene oxide, glow discharge and electron beam on the surface characteristics of poly(L-lactide-co-caprolactone) and the corresponding cellular response of adipose stem cells. Acta Biomater, 2010; 6(6):2060–2065; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.11.022.
3.
HorbachSER, BoumanMB, SmitJM, et al.Outcome of vaginoplasty in male-to-female transgenders: A systematic review of surgical techniques. J Sex Med, 2015; 12(6):1499–1512; doi: 10.1111/jsm.12868
4.
LiaoLM, DoyleJ, CrouchNS, et al.Dilation as treatment for vaginal agenesis and hypoplasia: A pilot exploration of benefits and barriers as perceived by patients. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2006; 26(2):144–148; doi: 10.1080/01443610500443527.
5.
PusicAL, MehraraBJ. Vaginal reconstruction: An algorithm approach to defect classification and flap reconstruction. J Surg Oncol, 2006; 94(6):515–521; doi: 10.1002/jso.
6.
DorinRP, AtalaA, de FilippoRE. Bioengineering a vaginal replacement using a small biopsy of autologous tissue. Semin Reprod Med, 2011; 29(1):38–44; doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1268702.
7.
ArcelusJ, BoumanWP, Van Den NoortgateW, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies in transsexualism. Eur Psychiatry, 2015; 30(6):807–815; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.005.
8.
Hawighorst-KnapsteinS, FusshoellerC, FranzC, et al.The impact of treatment for genital cancer on quality of life and body image—Results of a prospective longitudinal 10-year study. Gynecol Oncol, 2004; 94(2):398–403; doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.04.025.
9.
DingJX, ChenLM, ZhangXY, et al.Sexual and functional outcomes of vaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft or laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty: A comparative study. Hum Reprod, 2015; 30(3):581–589; doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu341.
10.
PaniciPB, RuscitoI, GasparriML, et al.Vaginal reconstruction with the Abbè-McIndoe technique: From dermal grafts to autologous in vitro cultured vaginal tissue transplant. Semin Reprod Med, 2011; 29(1):45–54; doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1268703.
11.
DeansR, BerraM, CreightonSM. Management of vaginal hypoplasia in disorders of sexual development: Surgical and non-surgical options. Sex Dev, 2010; 4(4–5):292–299; doi: 10.1159/000316231.
12.
FilipasD, BlackP, HohenfellnerR. The use of isolated caecal bowel segment in complicated vaginal reconstruction. BJU Int, 2000; 85(6):715–719; doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2000.00482.x.
13.
WeferJ, SekidoN, SievertKD, et al.Homologous acellular matrix graft for vaginal repair in rats: A pilot study for a new reconstructive approach. World J Urol, 2002; 20(4):260–263; doi: 10.1007/s00345-002-0284-1.
14.
SolettiL, NieponiceA, GuanJ, et al.A seeding device for tissue engineered tubular structures. Biomaterials, 2006; 27:4863–4870; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.04.042.
15.
KrishnamoorthyN, TsengYT, GajendraraoP, et al.A novel strategy to enhance secretion of ECM components by stem cells: Relevance to tissue engineering. Tissue Eng, 2018; 24(1–2):145–156; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0060.
16.
MeinelL, KarageorgiouV, HofmannS, et al.Engineering bone-like tissue in vitro using human bone marrow stem cells and silk scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2004; 71(1):25–34; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.30117.
17.
de FilippoRE, YooJJ, AtalaA. Engineering of vaginal tissue in vivo. Tissue Eng, 2003; 9(2):301–306; doi: 10.1089/107632703764664765.
18.
De FilippoRE, BishopCE, FilhoLF, et al.Tissue engineering a complete vaginal replacement from a small biopsy of autologous tissue. Transplantation, 2008; 86(2):208–214; doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31817f1686.
19.
ChenK, EberliD, YooJJ, et al.Bioengineered corporal tissue for structural and functional restoration of the penis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2010; 107(8):3346–3350; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909367106.
20.
AtalaA, BauerSB, SokerS, et al.Tissue-engineered autologous bladders for patients needing cystoplasty. Lancet, 2006; 367(9518):1241–1246; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68438-9.
21.
AtalaA, VacantiJP, PetersCA, et al.Formation of urothelial structures in vivo from dissociated cells attached to biodegradable polymer scaffolds in vitro. J Urol, 1992; 148(2 PT 2):658–662; doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36685-5.
22.
De FilippoRE, YooJJ, AtalaA. Urethral replacement using cell seeded tubularized collagen matrices. J Urol, 2002; 168(4 II):1789–1793; doi: 10.1097/00005392-200210020-00032.
23.
OberpenningF, MengJ, YooJJ, et al.De novo reconstitution of a functional mammalian urinary bladder by tissue engineering. Nature, 1999; 17(2):149–155; doi: 10.1038/6146.
24.
Raya-RiveraAM, EsquilianoD, YooJJ, et al.Tissue-engineered autologous urethras for patients who need reconstruction: An observational study. Lancet, 2011; 377(9772):1175–1182; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62354-9.
25.
RoschR, JungeK, KlingeU, et al.Mesh implants in hernia repair. Inflammatory cell response in a rat model. Eur Surg Res, 2003; 35(3):161–166; doi: 10.1159/000070045.
26.
PatelH, OstergardDR, SternschussG. Polypropylene mesh and the host response. Int Urogynecol J, 2012; 23(6):669–679; doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1718-y.
27.
CostelloCR, BachmanSL, GrantSA, et al.Characterization of heavyweight and lightweight polypropylene prosthetic mesh explants from a single patient. Surg Innov, 2007; 14(3):168–176; doi: 10.1177/1553350607306356.
28.
GigliobiancoG, ReguerosSR, OsmanNI, et al.Biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: How can we do better?. Biomed Res Int, 2015; 2015(1):968087; doi: 10.1155/2015/968087.
29.
AndersonJM.Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Res, 2001; 31(1):81–110; doi: 10.1146/annurev.matsci.31.1.81.
GretzerC, EmanuelssonL, LiljenstenE, et al.The inflammatory cell influx and cytokines changes during transition from acute inflammation to fibrous repair around implanted materials. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 2006; 17(6):669–687; doi: 10.1163/156856206777346340.
32.
LuttikhuizenDT, HarmsenMC, Van LuynMJA. Cellular and molecular dynamics in the foreign body reaction. Tissue Eng, 2006; 12(7):1955–1970; doi: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.1955.
33.
HorbettT. The Role of Adsorbed Proteins in Tissue Response to Biomaterials. In: RatnerBD, HoffmanAS, SchoenFJ, and LemonsJE, eds. 2nd publication, Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Biomaterials in Medicine. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004; pp. 237–246.
34.
ChangY, SunX, LiQ, et al.Silk fibroin scaffold as a potential choice for female pelvic reconstruction: A study on the biocompatibility in abdominal wall, pelvic, and vagina. Microsc Res Tech, 2017; 80(3):291–297; doi: 10.1002/jemt.22653.
35.
ColacoM, MettuJ, BadlaniG, et al.The scientific basis for the use of biomaterials in SUI and POP. BJU Int, 2015; 115(6):859–866; doi: 10.1111/bju.12819.
36.
JungeK, BinneböselM, Von TrothaKT, et al.Mesh biocompatibility: Effects of cellular inflammation and tissue remodelling. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2012; 397(2):255–270; doi: 10.1007/s00423-011-0780-0.
37.
MorrisonTJ, JacksonMV, CunninghamEK, et al.Mesenchymal stromal cells modulate macrophages in clinically relevant lung injury models by extracellular vesicle mitochondrial transfer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2017; 196(10):1275–1286; doi: 10.1164/rccm.201701-0170OC.
38.
Roman ReguerosS, AlbersenM, ManodoroS, et al.Acute in vivo response to an alternative implant for Urogynecology. Biomed Res Int, 2014; 2014(1):853610; doi: 10.1155/2014/853610.
39.
SheikhZ, BrooksPJ, BarzilayO, et al.Macrophages, foreign body giant cells and their response to implantable biomaterials. Materials (Basel), 2015; 8(9):5671–5701; doi: 10.3390/ma8095269.
40.
XueM, JacksonCJ. Extracellular matrix reorganization during wound healing and its impact on abnormal scarring. Adv Wound Care, 2015; 4(3):119–136; doi: 10.1089/wound.2013.0485.
41.
WaltersNJ, GentlemanE. Evolving insights in cell-matrix interactions: Elucidating how non-soluble properties of the extracellular niche direct stem cell fate. Acta Biomater, 2015; 11(1):3–16; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.09.038.
42.
PizzoferratoA, CiapettiG, SteaS, et al.Cell culture methods for testing biocompatibility. Clin Mater, 1994; 15(3):173–190; doi: 10.1016/0267-6605(94)90081-7.
43.
XiaH, XiaY. An in vitro study of non-aligned or aligned electrospun poly(methyl methacrylate) nanofibers as primary rat astrocytes-loading scaffold. Mater Sci Eng C, 2018; 91(1):228–235; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.050.
44.
WangJ, ThampattyB, LinJ, et al.Mechanoregulation of gene expression in fibroblasts. Gene, 2007; 391(1–2):1–15; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2007.01.014.Mechanoregulation.
45.
LeiL, SongY, ChenRQ. Biomechanical properties of prolapsed vaginal tissue in pre- and postmenopausal women. Int Urogynecol J, 2007; 18(6):603–607; doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0214-7.
46.
MangeraA, BullockAJ, RomanS, et al.Comparison of candidate scaffolds for tissue engineering for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse repair. BJU Int, 2013; 112(5):674–685; doi: 10.1111/bju.12186.
47.
OlsenA, SmithV, BergstromJ, et al.Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol, 2017; 89(4):501–506; doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.
48.
KufaishiH, AlarabM, DrutzH, et al.Static mechanical loading influences the expression of extracellular matrix and cell adhesion proteins in vaginal cells derived from premenopausal women with severe pelvic organ prolapse. Reprod Sci, 2016; 23(8):978–992; doi: 10.1177/1933719115625844.
49.
FeolaA, AbramowitchS, JallahZ, et al.Deterioration in biomechanical properties of the vagina following implantation of a high-stiffness prolapse mesh. BJOG, 2013; 120(2):224–232; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12077.
50.
GambleJG, EdwardsCC, MaxSR. Enzymatic adaptation in ligaments during immobilization. Am J Sports Med, 1984; 12(3):221–228; doi: 10.1177/036354658401200311.
51.
LabusLD, DjordjevicML, StanojevicDS, et al.Rectosigmoid vaginoplasty in patients with vaginal agenesis: Sexual and psychosocial outcomes. Sex Health, 2011; 8(3):427–430; doi: 10.1071/SH10105.
52.
KuhnA, SantiA, BirkhäuserM. Vaginal prolapse, pelvic floor function, and related symptoms 16 years after sex reassignment surgery in transsexuals. Fertil Steril, 2011; 95(7):2379–2382; doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.029.
53.
VashaghianM, DiedrichCM, Zandieh-DoulabiB, et al.Gentle cyclic straining of human fibroblasts on electrospun scaffolds enhances their regenerative potential. Acta Biomater, 2019; 84(1):159–168; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.034.
54.
DeprestJ, ZhengF, KonstantinovicM, et al.The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J, 2006; 17(Suppl. 7):S16–S25; doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0101-2.
55.
WolframU, WilkeHJ, ZyssetPK. Rehydration of vertebral trabecular bone: Influences on its anisotropy, its stiffness and the indentation work with a view to age, gender and vertebral level. Bone, 2010; 46(2):348–354; doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.09.035.
56.
GautieriA, VesentiniS, RedaelliA, et al.Hierarchical structure and nanomechanics of collagen microfibrils from the atomistic scale up. Nano Lett, 2011; 11(2):757–766; doi: 10.1021/nl103943u.
57.
GuoWH, FreyMT, BurnhamNA, et al.Substrate rigidity regulates the formation and maintenance of tissues. Biophys J, 2006; 90(6):2213–2220; doi: 10.1529/biophysj.105.070144.
58.
ChiquetM, RenedoAS, HuberF, et al.How do fibroblasts translate mechanical signals into changes in extracellular matrix production?. Matrix Biol, 2003; 22(1):73–80; doi: 10.1016/S0945-053X(03)00004-0.
59.
Jean-CharlesC, RubodC, BrieuM, et al.Biomechanical properties of prolapsed or non-prolapsed vaginal tissue: Impact on genital prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J, 2010; 21(12):1535–1538; doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1208-z.
60.
WazenR, CurreyJ, GuoH, et al.Micromotion-induced strain fields influence early stages of repair at bone-implant interfaces. Acta Biomater, 2013; 9(5):6663–6674; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.01.014.
61.
LiangR, AbramowitchS, KnightK, et al.Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG, 2013; 120(2):233–243; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12085.
62.
MukherjeeS, DarziS, RosamiliaA, et al.Blended nanostructured degradable mesh with endometrial mesenchymal stem cells promotes tissue integration and anti-inflammatory response in vivo for pelvic floor application. Biomacromolecules, 2019; 20(1):454–468; doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.8b01661.
63.
UlrichD, EdwardsSL, SuK, et al.Human endometrial mesenchymal stem cells modulate the tissue response and mechanical behavior of polyamide mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Tissue Eng Part A, 2014; 20(3–4):785–798; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0170.
64.
ZiatsNP, MillerKM, AndersonJM. In vitro and in vivo interactions of cells with biomaterials. Biomaterials, 1988; 9(1):5–13; doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(88)90063-4.
65.
Bochaton-PiallatML, GabbianiG, HinzB. The myofibroblast in wound healing and fibrosis: Answered and unanswered questions. F1000Res, 2016; 5(0):1–8; doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8190.1.
66.
HeneghanCJ, GoldacreB, OnakpoyaI, et al.Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic database review of the US FDA approval process. BMJ Open, 2017; 7(12):1–8; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017125.
67.
HirataE, KoyamaM, MurakamiG, et al.Comparative histological study of levels 1–3 supportive tissues using pelvic floor semiserial sections from elderly nulliparous and multiparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2011; 37(1):13–23; doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01298.x.
68.
AlperinM, MoalliPA. Remodeling of vaginal connective tissue in patients with prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2006; 18(5):544–550; doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000242958.25244.ff.
69.
KerkhofMH, HendriksL, BrölmannHAM. Changes in connective tissue in patients with pelvic organ prolapse—A review of the current literature. Int Urogynecol J, 2009; 20(4):461–474; doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0737-1.
70.
EberliD, FilhoLF, AtalaA, et al.Composite scaffolds for the engineering of hollow organs and tissues. Methods, 2009; 47(2):109–115; doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2008.10.014.
71.
AtalaA.Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering in urology. Urol Clin North Am, 2009; 36(2):199–209; doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2009.02.009.
72.
BadylakSF, FreytesDO, GilbertTW. Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: Structure and function. Acta Biomater, 2009; 5(1):1–13; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.013.
73.
AgrawalV, TotteyS, JohnsonSA, et al.Recruitment of progenitor cells by an extracellular matrix cryptic peptide in a mouse model of digit amputation. Tissue Eng Part A, 2011; 17(19–20):2435–2443; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2011.0036.
74.
BrownB, LondonoR, TotteyS, et al.Macrophage phenotype as a predictor of constructive remodeling following the implantation of biologically derived surgical mesh materials. Acta Biomater, 2012; 8(3):978–987; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.956839.
75.
BrownB, ValentinJ, Stewart-AkersA, et al.Macrophage phenotype and remodeling outcomes in response to biologic scaffolds with and without a cellular component. Biomaterials, 2009; 30(8):1482–1491; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.11.040.
76.
DavisGE, BaylessKJ, DavisMJ, et al.Regulation of tissue injury responses by the exposure of matricryptic sites within extracellular matrix molecules. Am J Pathol, 2000; 156(5):1489–1498; doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65020-1.
77.
NieponiceA, GilbertTW, JohnsonSA, et al.Bone marrow-derived cells participate in the long-term remodeling in a mouse model of esophageal reconstruction. J Surg Res, 2013; 182(1):e1–e7; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.09.029.
78.
SicariBM, AgrawalV, SiuBF, et al.A murine model of volumetric muscle loss and a regenerative medicine approach for tissue replacement. Tissue Eng Part A, 2012; 18(19–20):1941–1948; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0475.
79.
ZantopT, GilbertT, YoderM, et al.Extracellular matrix scaffolds are repopulated by bone marrow-derived cells in a mouse model of achilles tendon reconstruction. J Orthop Res, 2006; 25(6):1121–1127; doi: 10.1002/jor.
80.
ShiL, RonfardV.Biochemical and biomechanical characterization of porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS): A mini review. Int J Burns Trauma, 2013;3(4):173–179; eCollection2013.
81.
O'BrienFJ.Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today, 2011; 14(3):88–95; doi: 10.1016/S1369-7021(11)70058-X.
82.
WuX, WangY, ZhuC, et al.Preclinical animal study and human clinical trial data of co-electrospun poly(L-lactide-co-caprolactone) and fibrinogen mesh for anterior pelvic floor reconstruction. Int J Nanomedicine, 2016; 11(1):389–397; doi: 10.2147/IJN.S88803.
83.
VashaghianM, Ruiz-ZapataAM, KerkhofMH, et al.Towards a new generation of pelvic floor implants with electrospun nanofibrous matrices: A feasibility study. Neurourol Urodyn, 2017; 36(3):565–573; doi: 10.1002/nau.22969.
84.
FeolaA, BaroneW, MoalliP, et al.Characterizing the ex vivo textile and structural properties of synthetic prolapse mesh products. Int Urogynecol J, 2013; 24(4):559–564; doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1901-1.
85.
JordanSW, FligorJE, JanesLE, et al.Implant porosity and the foreign body response. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2018; 141(1):103e–112e; doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003930.
86.
PooleTJ, FinkelsteinEB, CoxCM. The role of FGF and VEGF in angioblast induction and migration during vascular development. Dev Dyn, 2001; 220(1):1–17; doi: 10.1002/1097-0177(2000)9999:9999<::AID-DVDY1087>3.0.CO;2-2.
87.
LakemanMME, LaanE, VaartCH, et al.A new method to measure vaginal sensibility. Neurourol Urodyn, 2010; 29(5):753–756; doi: 10.1002/nau.20790.
88.
van LunsenRHW, LaanE. Genital vascular responsiveness and sexual feelings in midlife women: Psychophysiologic, brain, and genital imaging studies. Menopause, 2004; 11(6 Pt 2):741–748; doi: 10.1097/01.gme.0000143704.48324.46.
89.
BeenkenA, MohammadiM. The FGF family: Biology, pathophysiology and therapy. Nat Rev, 2009; 8(3):235–253; doi: 10.1038/nrd2792.
90.
YangZ, YangY, ZhangL, et al.Mussel-inspired catalytic selenocystamine-dopamine coatings for long-term generation of therapeutic gas on cardiovascular stents Biomaterials Mussel-inspired catalytic selenocystamine-dopamine coatings for long-term generation of therapeutic gas on cardio. Biomaterials, 2018; 178(1):1–10; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.06.008.
91.
WangY, CaoZ, ChengR, et al.Immunomodulated electrospun fibrous scaffolds via bFGF camouflage for pelvic regeneration. Appl Mater Today, 2019; 15(1):570–581; doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2019.04.005.
92.
BaekY, LeeD, SoJ, et al.The tetrapeptide Arg-Leu-Tyr-Glu inhibits VEGF-induced angiogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2015; 463(4):532–537; doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.05.073.
93.
Julio-PieperM, LaraHE, BravoJA, et al.Effects of nerve growth factor (NGF) on blood vessels area and expression of the angiogenic factors VEGF and TGFbeta 1 in the rat ovary. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2006; 4(2):57; doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-4-57.
94.
EbendalT.Function and evolution in the NGF family and its receptors. J Neurosci Res, 1992; 32(4):461–470; doi: 10.1002/jnr.490320402.
95.
AloeL, Bracci-LaudieroL, BoniniS, et al.The expanding role of nerve growth factor: From neurotrophic activity to immunologic diseases. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol, 1997; 52(9):883–994; doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb01247.x.
96.
RahmanMM, MatsuokaK, TakeshitaS, et al.Secretion of PDGF isoforms during osteoclastogenesis and its modulation by anti-osteoclast drugs. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2015; 462(2):159–164; doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.04.115.
97.
ShiM, ZhuJ, WangR, et al.Latent TGF-β structure and activation. Nature, 2016; 474(7351):343–349; doi: 10.1038/nature10152.Latent.
98.
SeegerP, MussoT, SozzaniS. The TGF-β superfamily in dendritic cell biology. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, 2015; 26(6):647–657; doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2015.06.002.
99.
ZhangN, QinX, ZhangJ, et al.Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells accelerate the morphological and functional recovery of neovaginas. Artif Organs, 2018; 42(12):1206–1215; doi: 10.1111/aor.13297.
100.
ZhangY, ZhuZ, HuaK, et al.Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in vaginal replacement in vitro and in a rat model. Am J Transl Res, 2018;10(11):3762–3772; eCollection 2018.
101.
LiY, LiuF, ZhangZ, et al.Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells could acquire the phenotypes of epithelial cells and accelerate vaginal reconstruction combined with small intestinal submucosa. Cell Biol Int, 2015; 39(11):1225–1233; doi: 10.1002/cbin.10495.
102.
HoMV, HeydarkhanS, VernetD, et al.Stimulating vaginal repair in rats through skeletal muscle-derived stem cells seeded on small intestinal submucosal scaffolds. Obstet Gynecol, 2009; 114(2):300–309; doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af6abd.
103.
NakatsuH, UenoT, OgaA, et al.Influence of mesenchymal stem cells on stomach tissue engineering using small intestinal submucosa. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2015; 9(3):296–304; doi: 10.1002/term.1794.
104.
AtalaA.Tissue engineering of reproductive tissues and organs. Fertil Steril, 2012; 98(1):21–29; doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.038.
105.
LiB, CohenA, HudsonT, et al.Mobilized human hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells promote kidney repair after ischemia/reperfusion injury. Circulation, 2010; 121(20):2211–2220; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.928796.
106.
EggenhoferE, LukF, DahlkeMH, et al.The life and fate of mesenchymal stem cells. Front Immunol, 2014; 5(148):1–6; doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00148.
107.
Le BlancK, RingdénO. Immunomodulation by mesenchymal stem cells and clinical experience. J Intern Med, 2007; 262(5):509–525; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01844.x.
108.
HsiaoSTF, AsgariA, LokmicZ, et al.Comparative analysis of paracrine factor expression in human adult mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow, adipose, and dermal tissue. Stem Cells Dev, 2012; 21(12):2189–2203; doi: 10.1089/scd.2011.0674.
109.
PokrywczynskaM, JundzillA, BodnarM, et al.Do mesenchymal stem cells modulate the milieu of reconstructed bladder wall?. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz), 2013; 61(6):483–493; doi: 10.1007/s00005-013-0249-7.
110.
ZhuWD, XuYM, FengC, et al.Bladder reconstruction with adipose-derived stem cell-seeded bladder acellular matrix grafts improve morphology composition. World J Urol, 2010; 28(4):493–498; doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0508-8.
111.
ZukPA, ZhuM, MizunoH, et al.Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: Implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Eng, 2001; 7(2):211–228; doi: 10.1089/107632701300062859.
112.
LinC-S.Advances in stem cell therapy for the lower urinary tract. World J Stem Cells, 2010; 2(1):1–4; doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v2.i1.1.
113.
MizunoH.Adipose-derived stem cells for tissue repair and regeneration: Ten years of research and a literature review. J Nippon Med Sch, 2009; 76(2):56–66; doi: 10.1272/jnms.76.56.
114.
De UgarteDA, MorizonoK, ElbarbaryA, et al.Comparison of multi-lineage cells from human adipose tissue and bone marrow. Cells Tissues Organs, 2003; 174(3):101–109; doi: 10.1159/000071150.
115.
KernS, EichlerH, StoeveJ, et al.Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue. Stem Cells, 2006; 24(5):1294–1301; doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2005-0342.
116.
JurgensWJFM, Oedayrajsingh-VarmaMJ, HelderMN, et al.Effect of tissue-harvesting site on yield of stem cells derived from adipose tissue: Implications for cell-based therapies. Cell Tissue Res, 2008; 332(3):415–426; doi: 10.1007/s00441-007-0555-7.
117.
Oedayrajsingh-VarmaMJ, van HamSM, KnippenbergM, et al.Adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cell yield and growth characteristics are affected by the tissue-harvesting procedure. Cytotherapy, 2006; 8(2):166–177; doi: 10.1080/14653240600621125.
118.
WernigM, MeissnerA, ForemanR, et al.In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature, 2007; 448(7151):318–324; doi: 10.1038/nature05944.
119.
TakahashiK, YamanakaS. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 2006; 126(4):663–676; doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024.
MaheraliN, SridharanR, XieW, et al.Directly reprogrammed fibroblasts show global epigenetic remodeling and widespread tissue contribution. Cell Stem Cell, 2007; 1(1):55–70; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2007.05.014.
122.
YuJ, VodyanikMA, Smuga-OttoK, et al.Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2008; 63(3):154–155; doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000305193.72586.39.
123.
KhanS, VillalobosMA, ChoronRL, et al.Fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor play a critical role in endotheliogenesis from human adipose-derived stem cells. J Vasc Surg, 2017; 65(5):1483–1492; doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.04.034.
124.
HasanzadehE, AmoabedinyG, HaghighipourN, et al.The stability evaluation of mesenchymal stem cells differentiation toward endothelial cells by chemical and mechanical stimulation. Vitr Cell Dev Biol Anim, 2017; 53(9):818–826; doi: 10.1007/s11626-017-0165-y.
125.
BrunJ, LutzKA, NeumayerKMH, et al.Smooth muscle-like cells generated from human mesenchymal stromal cells display marker gene expression and electrophysiological competence comparable to bladder smooth muscle cells. PLoS One, 2015; 10(12):1–21; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145153.
126.
AmorimBR, SilvérioKG, CasatiMZ, et al.Neuropilin controls endothelial differentiation by mesenchymal stem cells from the periodontal ligament. J Periodontol, 2016; 87(7):e138–e147; doi: 10.1902/jop.2016.150603.
127.
AllamehA, JazayeriM, AdelipourM. In vivo vascularization of endothelial cells derived from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in SCID mouse model. Cell J, 2016; 18(2):179–188; doi: 10.22074/cellj.2016.4312.
128.
AlimpertiS, YouH, GeorgeT, et al.Cadherin-11 regulates both mesenchymal stem cell differentiation into smooth muscle cells and the development of contractile function in vivo. J Cell Sci, 2014; 127(12):2627–2638; doi: 10.1242/jcs.134833.
129.
AjiK, MaimaijiangM, AimaitiA, et al.Differentiation of human adipose derived stem cells into smooth muscle cells is modulated by CaMKII?. Stem Cells Int, 2016; 2016(1267480):1–9; doi: 10.1155/2016/1267480.
130.
SharmaAK, BuryMI, MarksAJ, et al.A Nonhuman primate model for urinary bladder regeneration using autologous sources of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells, 2011; 29(2):241–250; doi: 10.1002/stem.568.
131.
ShuklaD, BoxGN, EdwardsRA, et al.Bone marrow stem cells for urologic tissue engineering. World J Urol, 2008; 26(4):341–349; doi: 10.1007/s00345-008-0311-y.
132.
CarrierP, DeschambeaultA, AudetC, et al.Impact of cell source on human cornea reconstructed by tissue engineering. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2009; 50(6):2645–2652; doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-2001.
133.
BouhoutS, ChabaudS, BolducS. Organ‑specific matrix self‑assembled by mesenchymal cells improves the normal urothelial differentiation in vitro. World J Urol, 2016; 34(1):121–130; doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1596-2.
134.
HoferHR, TuanRS. Secreted trophic factors of mesenchymal stem cells support neurovascular and musculoskeletal therapies. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2016; 7(1):1–14; doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0394-0.
JoplingC, BoueS, BelmonteJCI. Dedifferentiation, transdifferentiation and reprogramming: Three routes to regeneration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2011; 12(2):79–89; doi: 10.1038/nrm3043.
137.
LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 2009; 6(7):e1000100; doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
138.
SandersonS, TattID, HigginsJPT. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: A systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol, 2007; 36(3):666–676; doi: 10.1093/ije/dym018.
139.
Da CostaBR, CevallosM, AltmanDG, et al.Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: Bibliographic study. BMJ Open, 2011; 1(1):e000048; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048.
140.
StangA.Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol, 2010; 25(9):603–605; doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z.
141.
HooijmansCR, LeenaarsM, Ritskes-HoitingaM. A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern Lab Anim, 2010; 38(2):167–182; doi: 10.1177/026119291003800208.
142.
VandenbrouckeJP, von ElmE, AltmanDG, et al.Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg, 2014; 12(12):1500–1524; doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014.
143.
HenckesN, FestaJ, FaleiroD, et al.Tissue-engineered solution containing cells and biomaterials—An in vitro study: A perspective as a novel therapeutic application. Int J Artif Organs, 2019; 42(6):307–314; doi: 10.1177/0391398819833383.
144.
SartonevaR, KuismanenK, JuntunenM, et al.Porous poly-L-lactide-co-e-caprolactone scaffold: A novel biomaterial for vaginal tissue engineering. R Soc Open Sci, 2018; 5(8):180811; doi: 10.1098/rsos.180811.
145.
ZhuL, ZhouH, SunZ, et al.Anatomic and sexual outcomes after vaginoplasty using tissue-engineered biomaterial graft in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: A new minimally invasive and effective surgery. J Sex Med, 2013; 10(6):1652–1658; doi: 10.1111/jsm.12143.
146.
ZhangH, ZhangJ, HuangX, et al.The methods and mechanisms to differentiate endothelial‑like cells and smooth muscle cells from mesenchymal stem cells for vascularization in vaginal reconstruction. Mol Biotechnol, 2018; 60(6):396–411; doi: 10.1007/s12033-018-0079-2.
147.
CaiY, WuF, YuY, et al.Porous scaffolds from droplet microfluidics for prevention of intrauterine adhesion. Acta Biomater, 2019; 84(1):222–230; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.016.
148.
YeM, YuL, SheY, et al.Healing effects of a protein scaffold loaded with adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells on radiation-induced vaginal injury in rats. J Int Med Res, 2020; 48(10):1–19; doi: 10.1177/0300060520958826.
149.
PaniciPB, BellatiF, BoniT, et al.Vaginoplasty using autologous in vitro cultured vaginal tissue in a patient with Mayer-von-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Hum Reprod, 2007; 22(7):2025–2028; doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem096.
150.
AciénP, Nohales-AlfonsoFJ, Sánchez-FerrerML, et al.Clinical pilot study to evaluate the neovaginal PACIENA prosthesis® for vaginoplasty without skin grafts in women with vaginal agenesis. BMC Womens Health, 2019; 19(1):1–10; doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0841-z.
151.
OrabiH, SabaI, RousseauA, et al.Novel three-dimensional autologous tissue-engineered vaginal tissues using the self-assembly technique. Transl Res, 2017; 180(1):22–36; doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2016.07.019.
152.
JakubowskaW, ChabaudS, SabaI, et al.Prevascularized tissue-engineered human vaginal mucosa: In vitro optimization and in vivo validation. Tissue Eng Part A, 2020; 26(13–14):811–822; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2020.0036.
153.
DingJX, ChenXJ, ZhangXY, et al.Acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft for cervicovaginal reconstruction in eight patients with malformation of the uterine cervix. Hum Reprod, 2014; 29(4):677–682; doi: 10.1093/humrep/det470.
154.
Raya-RiveraAM, EsquilianoD, Fierro-PastranaR, et al.Tissue-engineered autologous vaginal organs in patients: A pilot cohort study. Lancet, 2014; 384(9940):329–336; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60542-0.
155.
HouC, ZhengJ, LiZ, et al.Printing 3D vagina tissue analogues with vagina decellularized extracellular matrix bioink. Int J Biol Macromol, 2021; 180(1):177–186; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.03.070.
156.
SicariBM, JohnsonSA, SiuBF, et al.The effect of source animal age upon the in vivo remodeling characteristics of an extracellular matrix scaffold. Biomaterials, 2012; 33(22):5524–5533; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.04.017.
157.
ZhangJK, DuRX, ZhangL, et al.A new material for tissue engineered vagina reconstruction: Acellular porcine vagina matrix. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 2017; 105(7):1949–1959; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36066.
158.
Roy ChowdhuryR, AachouiY, GhoshSK. Effects of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) on the murine innate immune microenvironment induced by heat-killed Staphylococcus aureus. PLoS One, 2012; 7(11):1–10; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048724.
159.
ZhengMH, ChenJ, KirilakY, et al.Porcine small intestine submucosa (SIS) is not an acellular collagenous matrix and contains porcine DNA: Possible implications in human implantation. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater, 2005; 73(1):61–67; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30170.
160.
JiangW, ZhangJ, LvX, et al.Use of small intestinal submucosal and acellular dermal matrix grafts in giant omphaloceles in neonates and a rabbit abdominal wall defect model. J Pediatr Surg, 2016; 51(3):368–373; doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.08.005.
161.
LiangR, KnightK, BaroneW, et al.Extracellular matrix regenerative graft attenuates the negative impact of polypropylene prolapse mesh on vagina in rhesus macaque. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2017; 72(5):277–278; doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000515906.95324.21.
162.
GuptaA, FrancisS, StewartR, et al.Repair of colonic neovaginal stenosis using a biological graft in a male-to-female transgender patient. Int Urogynecol J, 2019; 30(4):661–663; doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3800-6.
163.
StanyMP, SundeJ, BidusMA, et al.The use of acellular dermal allograft for vulvovaginal reconstruction. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2010; 20(6):1079–1081; doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181e2ed24.
164.
ZhangX, LiuZ, YangY, et al.The clinical outcomes of vaginoplasty using tissue-engineered biomaterial mesh in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Int J Surg, 2017; 44(1):9–14; doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.06.026.
165.
SinhaU, SaadatD, DohertyC, et al.Use of AlloDerm implant to improve cosmesis after parotidectomy. Facial Plast Surg Aesthetic Med, 2003; 5(1):512–513; doi: 10.1177/014556130708600820.
166.
El-KassabyA, RetikA, YooJ, et al.Urethral stricture repair with an off-the-shelf collagen matrix. J Urol, 2003; 169(1):170–173; doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64060-8.
167.
AtalaA, Raya-RiveraAM, EsquilianoD, et al.Tissue-engineered autologous urethras for patients who need reconstruction: An observational study. Lancet, 2011; 377(9772):1175–1182; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62354-9.
168.
DingJX, ZhangXY, ChenLM, et al.Vaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft in two patients with Meyer-Von-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: A prospective new technique for vaginal reconstruction. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 2013; 75(2):93–96; doi: 10.1159/000343233.
169.
Gigante GomesT, AgostinhoM, CardosoMC, et al.Xcm biologic tissue matrix xenograft and autologous micromucosa graft for vaginal reconstruction in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Arch Plast Surg, 2021; 48(2):185–188; doi: 10.5999/aps.2020.00556.
170.
GrecoKV, JonesLG, Obiri-yeboaI, et al.Creation of an acellular vaginal matrix for potential vaginal augmentation and cloacal repair original study creation of an acellular vaginal matrix for potential vaginal augmentation and cloacal repair. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol, 2018; 31(5):473–479; doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2018.05.003.
171.
NodaleC, VescarelliE, AmiciSD, et al.Characterization of human vaginal mucosa cells for autologous in vitro cultured vaginal tissue transplantation in patients with MRKH syndrome. Biomed Res Int, 2014; 2014(1):201518; doi: 10.1155/2014/201518.
KhorramirouzR, KameliM, EftekharzadehS, et al.Application of omentum as an in vivo bioreactor for regeneration of decellularized human internal mammary artery. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2017; 105(10):2685–2693; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36121.
174.
SuhSW, KimJ, ShinJY, et al.Use of omentum as an in vivo cell culture system in tissue engineering. ASAIO J, 2004; 50(5):464–467; doi: 10.1097/01.MAT.0000138016.83837.8A.
175.
WedlerV, Meuli-SimmenC, GuggenheimM, et al.Laparoscopic technique for secondary vaginoplasty in male to female transsexuals using a modified vascularized pedicled sigmoid. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 2004; 57(4):181–185; doi: 10.1159/000076476.
176.
RothmanD.The use of peritoneum in the construction of a vagina. Obstet Gynecol, 1972;40(6):835–838.
177.
DhallK.Amnion graft for treatment of congenital absence of the vagina. BJOG, 1984; 91(3):279–282; doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1984.tb04768.x.
178.
DavydovSN, ZhvitiashviliO.Formation of vagina (colpoiesis) from peritoneum of Douglas pouch. Acta Chir Plast, 1974;16(1):35–41.
De CuypereG, Van HemelrijckM, MichelA, et al.Prevalence and demography of transsexualism in Belgium. Eur Psychiatry, 2007; 22(3):137–141; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2006.10.002.
183.
HoenigJ, KennaJC. The prevalence of transsexualism in England and Wales. Br J Psychiatry, 1974; 124(579):181–190; doi: 10.1192/bjp.124.2.181.
184.
LandenM, WalinderJ, LundstromB. Prevalence, incidence and sex ratio of transsexualism. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 1996; 93(4):221–223; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb10638.x.
185.
Van KesterenPJ, GoorenLJ, MegensJA. An epidemiological and demographic study of transsexuals in the Netherlands. Arch Sex Behav, 1996; 25(6):589–600; doi: 10.1007/BF02437841.
186.
WålinderJ.Transsexualism: Definition, prevalence and sex distribution. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl, 1968; 43(203S):255–258; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1968.tb02000.x.
187.
WeitzeC, OsburgS. Empirical data on epidemiology and application of the German Transsexuals' Act during its first ten years. Int J Transgenderism, 1996; 25(4):409–425; doi: 10.1007/BF02437583.
188.
LinY, ZhouL, DaiL, et al.Vaginectomy and vaginoplasty for isolated vaginal recurrence 8 years after cervical cancer radical hysterectomy: A case report and literature review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2017; 43(9):1493–1497; doi: 10.1111/jog.13375.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
