Urogenital diseases, such as hypospadias, incontinence, urethral obstruction, and pelvic organ prolapse, are common conditions that often require treatments at specialized health care providers. All these conditions can have a negative effect on quality of life, but due to issues of taboo and shame, treatment of urogenital disorders has received less attention and has perhaps undergone less development than desirable. Reconstructive surgery of the lower urinary tract is not without complications, and the functional results may be clinically suboptimal and not meeting with patient expectations. Recent advancements in tissue engineering (TE), material sciences, and disease modeling may create new treatment solutions to diseases of the lower urinary tract. To reach constructive advancement of urogenital TE, we created an interdisciplinary network with European scientists, from different backgrounds and research traditions, to identify knowledge gaps and to stimulate further interactions. In this study, we describe the unmet medical need, the advances in new materials and technologies, and the need for preclinical disease models. We concluded that recent developments offer hope for future treatment options, and with this review, we argue that an interdisciplinary network is essential for the transition from bench to bedside. However, for real progress in the field to manifest, we should further integrate patient representatives, as well as representatives of regulatory bodies.
Impact Statement
The unmet needs in urogenital tissue engineering (TE) are affecting the quality of life for many patients. Interdisciplinary networks are essential for the identification of relevant research and the development of new treatment options. Recognizing and integrating clinical need, the patient’s voice, and the technological advancements are essential for delivering holistic, patient-centered urological and urogynecological care in the future. Integration of regulatory bodies early in our networks is essential to ensure that the TE field is ready to move forward toward treatment options for the ongoing medical challenges in urogenital diseases.
MaherC, FeinerB, BaesslerK, et al.Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013(4):CD004014.
2.
GlazenerCM, BreemanS, EldersA, et al.; PROSPECT study group). Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: Two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet, 2017; 389(10067):381–392.
3.
ArtsenAM, SassaniJC, MoalliPA, et al.Complications reported to the food and drug administration: A cross-sectional comparison of urogynecologic meshes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 2022; 28(7):452–460.
4.
FordAA, RogersonL, CodyJD, et al.Mid‐urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 7(7)7:CD006375.
5.
AtalaA, BauerSB, SokerS, et al.Tissue-engineered autologous bladders for patients needing cystoplasty. Lancet, 2006; 367(9518):1241–1246.
6.
JosephDB, BorerJG, De FilippoRE, et al.Autologous cell seeded biodegradable scaffold for augmentation cystoplasty: Phase II study in children and adolescents with spina bifida. J Urol, 2014; 191(5):1389–1395.
SloffM, SimaioforidisV, de VriesR, et al.Tissue engineering of the bladder–reality or myth? A systematic review. J Urol, 2014; 192(4):1035–1042.
9.
St-LaurentM-P, Chavez-MunozC, BlackPC. Is engineered tissue the future of bladder reconstruction: Con. Eur Urol Focus, 2024; 10(4):668–669.
10.
US Food and Drug administration. Same Surgical Procedure Exception under 21CRF 1217.15(b). Guidance for Industry. 2017. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/89920/download
Slieker-ten HoveMC, Pool-GoudzwaardAL, EijkemansMJ, et al.The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2009; 20(9):1037–1045.
14.
WuJM, MatthewsCA, ConoverMM, et al.Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol, 2014; 123(6):1201–1206.
15.
KramerKJ, Rhoads-BaezaME, SadekS, et al.Trends and evolution in women’s health workforce in the first quarter of the 21(st) century. World J Gynecol Womens Health, 2022; 5(5):622.
16.
Cristina RussuM. A New Cell Stem Concept for Pelvic Floor Disorders Prevention and Treatment – Endometrial Mesenchymal Stem Cells. In: DianaK., editor. Possibilities and Limitations in Current Translational Stem Cell Research. Biochemistry. IntechOpen: Rijeka; 2023. p. 11.
17.
DallenbachP. To mesh or not to mesh: A review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. IJWH, 2015; 7:331–343.
18.
NordenvallAS, FrisenL, NordenstromA, et al.Population based nationwide study of hypospadias in Sweden, 1973 to 2009: Incidence and risk factors. J Urol, 2014; 191(3):783–789.
19.
DuarsaGWK, PratiwiDA, TirtayasaPW, et al.Functional and cosmetic urethroplasty outcome, emotional stress after genital examination, post traumatic stress disorder, and ages at the time of urethroplasty as potential risk factor causing psychosocial disorder of hypospadia children. Open Access Maced J Med Sci, 2019; 7(9):1452–1455.
20.
PalminteriE, BerdondiniE, VerzeP, et al.Contemporary urethral stricture characteristics in the developed world. Urology, 2013; 81(1):191–196.
21.
ChepelovaN, SagitovaG, MunblitD, et al.The search for an optimal tissue-engineered urethra model for clinical application based on preclinical trials in male animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bioeng Transl Med, 2024; 9(6):e10700.
22.
BaradaranN, HampsonLA, EdwardsTC, et al.Patient-Reported outcome measures in urethral reconstruction. Curr Urol Rep, 2018; 19(7):48.
23.
JacksonMJ, ChaudhuryI, MangeraA, et al.A prospective patient-centred evaluation of urethroplasty for anterior urethral stricture using a validated patient-reported outcome measure. Eur Urol, 2013; 64(5):777–782.
24.
JacksonMJ, SciberrasJ, MangeraA, et al.Defining a patient-reported outcome measure for urethral stricture surgery. Eur Urol, 2011; 60(1):60–68.
25.
BrandesSB. Vascular anatomy of the genital skin and the urethra: Implications for urethral reconstruction. In: BrandesSB., editor. Urethral reconstructive surgery. Humana Press: Totowa, NJ; 2008. pp. 153–164.
26.
BadylakSF, ValentinJE, RavindraAK, et al.Macrophage phenotype as a determinant of biologic scaffold remodeling. Tissue Eng Part A, 2008; 14(11):1835–1842.
27.
MangeraA, BullockAJ, ChappleCR, et al.Are biomechanical properties predictive of the success of prostheses used in stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse? A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn, 2012; 31(1):13–21.
28.
SangsterP, MorleyR. Biomaterials in urinary incontinence and treatment of their complications. Indian J Urol, 2010; 26(2):221–229.
29.
ChappleCR, OsmanNI, MangeraA, et al.Application of tissue engineering to pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Low Urin Tract Symptoms, 2015; 7(2):63–70.
30.
DiedrichCM, GulerZ, HympanovaL, et al.Evaluation of the short-term host response and biomechanics of an absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate scaffold in a sheep model following vaginal implantation. BJOG, 2022; 129(7):1039–1049.
31.
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.
32.
LiQ, WangJ, LiuH, et al.Tissue-engineered mesh for pelvic floor reconstruction fabricated from silk fibroin scaffold with adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Tissue Res, 2013; 354(2):471–480.
33.
HungMJ, WenMC, HuangYT, et al.Fascia tissue engineering with human adipose-derived stem cells in a murine model: Implications for pelvic floor reconstruction. J Formos Med Assoc, 2014; 113(10):704–715.
34.
KouwerPH, KoepfM, Le SageVA, et al.Responsive biomimetic networks from polyisocyanopeptide hydrogels. Nature, 2013; 493(7434):651–655.
35.
YuanH, LiuK, CondorM, et al.Synthetic fibrous hydrogels as a platform to decipher cell-matrix mechanical interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2023; 120(15):e2216934120.
36.
GuddeAN, van VelthovenMJJ, RooversJWR, et al.Polyisocyanides as a substrate to trigger vaginal fibroblast functioning in an in vitro model for prolapse repair. Biomater Adv, 2022; 141:213104.
37.
van VelthovenMJJ, GuddeAN, ArendsenE, et al.Growth factor immobilization to synthetic hydrogels: Bioactive bFGF-functionalized polyisocyanide hydrogels. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(27):e2301109.
38.
GuddeAN, van VelthovenMJJ, KouwerPHJ, et al.Injectable polyisocyanide hydrogel as healing supplement for connective tissue regeneration in an abdominal wound model. Biomaterials, 2023; 302:122337.
39.
KuniakovaM, NovakovaZV, HaspingerD, et al.Effects of two decellularization protocols on the mechanical behavior and structural properties of the human urethra. Int J Mol Sci, 2024; 25(22):12361.
40.
LeiL, SongY, ChenR. Biomechanical properties of prolapsed vaginal tissue in pre- and postmenopausal women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2007; 18(6):603–607.
41.
KochováP, CimrmanR, JansováM, et al.The histological microstructure and in vitro mechanical properties of the human female postmenopausal perineal body. Menopause, 2019; 26(1):66–77.
42.
ZhuJ, YangF, HeF, TianX, TangS, ChenX. A tubular gelatin scaffold capable of the time-dependent controlled release of epidermal growth factor and mitomycin C. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2015; 135:416–424.
43.
LvX, LiZ, ChenS, et al.Structural and functional evaluation of oxygenating keratin/silk fibroin scaffold and initial assessment of their potential for urethral tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2016; 84:99–110.
44.
VersteegdenLR, van KampenKA, JankeHP, et al.Tubular collagen scaffolds with radial elasticity for hollow organ regeneration. Acta Biomater, 2017; 52:1–8.
45.
LvX, FengC, LiuY, et al.A smart bilayered scaffold supporting keratinocytes and muscle cells in micro/nano-scale for urethral reconstruction. Theranostics, 2018; 8(11):3153–3163; doi: 10.7150/thno.22080 Erratum in: Theranostics. 2018 Jul 27;8(15):4152–4154.
46.
LiuW, CaoN, FanS, et al.Angiogenesis potential of bladder acellular matrix hydrogel by compounding endothelial cells. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 2019; 2(3):1158–1167.
47.
ChapinK, KhalifaA, MbimbaT, et al.In vivo biocompatibility and time-dependent changes in mechanical properties of woven collagen meshes: A comparison to xenograft and synthetic mid-urethral sling materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2019; 107(3):479–489.
48.
KobayashiM, KadotaJ, HashimotoY, et al.Elastic modulus of ECM hydrogels derived from decellularized tissue affects capillary network formation in endothelial cells. Int J Mol Sci, 2020; 21(17):6304.
49.
XiaoS, WangP, ZhaoJ, et al.Bi-layer silk fibroin skeleton and bladder acellular matrix hydrogel encapsulating adipose-derived stem cells for bladder reconstruction. Biomater Sci, 2021; 9(18):6169–6182.
50.
GalloN, NataliML, CurciC, et al.Analysis of the physico-chemical, mechanical and biological properties of crosslinked Type-I collagen from horse tendon: Towards the development of ideal scaffolding material for urethral regeneration. Materials (Basel), 2021; 14(24):7648.
51.
CunnaneEM, DavisNF, CunnaneCV, et al.Mechanical, compositional and morphological characterisation of the human male urethra for the development of a biomimetic tissue engineered urethral scaffold. Biomaterials, 2021; 269:120651.
52.
KhademolqoraniS, TavanaiH, ChronakisIS, BoisenA, AjalloueianF. The determinant role of fabrication technique in final characteristics of scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: A focus on silk fibroin-based scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 122:111867.
53.
SabaI, BaratC, ChabaudS, et al.Immunocompetent human 3D organ-specific hormone-responding vaginal mucosa model of HIV-1 infection. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 2021; 27(3):152–166.
54.
XuanZ, PengQ, LarsenT, et al.Tailoring hydrogel composition and stiffness to control smooth muscle cell differentiation in bioprinted constructs. Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2023; 20(2):199–212.
55.
LanX, LuoM, LiM, et al.Swim bladder-derived biomaterials: Structures, compositions, properties, modifications, and biomedical applications. J Nanobiotechnology, 2024; 22(1):186.
56.
ShaoT, YanM, LiuR, et al.Bacterial cellulose-based scaffold modified with anti-CD29 antibody to selectively capture urine-derived stem cells for bladder repair. Carbohydr Polym, 2025; 352:123150.
57.
GlybochkoPV, AlyaevYG, ShekhterAB, et al.PLGA mesh-collagen hybrid scaffold and tissue-engineered product in substitution urethroplasty: Experimental validation. Urologiia, 2015(6):5–13.
58.
XiaoY, ZhangJ, LuY, et al.Fabrication and biocompatibility evaluation of polyurethrane- acellular matrix composite scaffold in vitro and in vivo. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2015; 29(8):1016–1021.
59.
HorstM, MilleretV, NoetzliS, GobetR, SulserT, EberliD. Polyesterurethane and acellular matrix based hybrid biomaterial for bladder engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2017; 105(3):658–667.
60.
VashaghianM, Ruiz-ZapataAM, KerkhofMH, et al.Toward a new generation of pelvic floor implants with electrospun nanofibrous matrices: A feasibility study. Neurourol Urodyn, 2017; 36(3):565–573.
61.
ZhangK, FuQ, YooJ, et al.3D bioprinting of urethra with PCL/PLCL blend and dual autologous cells in fibrin hydrogel: An in vitro evaluation of biomimetic mechanical property and cell growth environment. Acta Biomater, 2017; 50:154–164.
62.
LiZ, TuffinJ, LeiIM, et al.Solution fibre spinning technique for the fabrication of tuneable decellularised matrix-laden fibres and fibrous micromembranes. Acta Biomater, 2018; 78:111–122.
63.
PatelKH, DunnAJ, TalovicM, et al.Aligned nanofibers of decellularized muscle ECM support myogenic activity in primary satellite cells in vitro. Biomed Mater, 2019; 14(3):035010.
64.
SivaramanS, AmorosoN, GuX, et al.Evaluation of Poly (Carbonate-Urethane) Urea (PCUU) scaffolds for urinary bladder tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng, 2019; 47(3):891–901.
65.
WangC, ChenC, GuoM, LiB, HanF, ChenW. Stretchable collagen-coated polyurethane-urea hydrogel seeded with bladder smooth muscle cells for urethral defect repair in a rabbit model. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2019; 30(12):135.
66.
NiuY, LiuG, FuM, et al.Designing a multifaceted bio-interface nanofiber tissue-engineered tubular scaffold graft to promote neo-vascularization for urethral regeneration. J Mater Chem B, 2025; 13(17):5190.
67.
WangZ, HuJ, YuJ, ChenD. Preparation and characterization of nano-laponite/PLGA composite scaffolds for urethra tissue engineering. Mol Biotechnol, 2020; 62(3):192–199.
68.
BickhausJA, FraserMO, WeidnerAC, et al.Polycarbonate urethane mesh: A new material for pelvic reconstruction. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 2021; 27(2):e469–e475.
69.
Bernal-ChávezSA, Alcalá-AlcaláS, Tapia-GuerreroYS, MagañaJJ, Del Prado-AudeloML, Leyva-GómezG. Cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol-xanthan gum hydrogel fabricated by freeze/thaw technique for potential application in soft tissue engineering. RSC Adv, 2022; 12(34):21713–21724.
70.
FuZ, XiaoS, WangP, et al.Injectable, stretchable, toughened, bioadhesive composite hydrogel for bladder injury repair. RSC Adv, 2023; 13(16):10903–10913.
71.
Russo SerafiniM, MowatA, MustafaS, et al.3D-Printed Medical-Grade Polycaprolactone (mPCL) scaffold for the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse and abdominal hernias. Bioengineering (Basel), 2023; 10(11):1242.
72.
ZhengJ, ZhangX, GuoK, et al.Enhancing vaginal reconstruction through 3D bioprinted scaffolds using a novel vECM-GelMA-SF bioink. Biofabrication, 2024; 17(1); doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/ad95bf
73.
HanY, JiangJ, LiJ, ZhaoL, XiZ. Influences of polyphenols on the properties of crosslinked acellular fish swim bladders: Experiments and molecular dynamic simulations. Polymers (Basel), 2024; 16(8):1111.
74.
JinY, WangY, YangR, et al.Multilayered hydrogel scaffold construct with native tissue matched elastic modulus: A regenerative microenvironment for urethral scar-free healing. Biomaterials, 2025; 312:122711.
75.
RibitschI, BaptistaPM, Lange-ConsiglioA, et al.Large animal models in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering: To do or not to do. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:972.
76.
AdamowiczJ, KuffelB, Van BredaSV, et al.Reconstructive urology and tissue engineering: Converging developmental paths. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2019; 13(3):522–533.
77.
Domínguez-OlivaA, Hernández-ÁvalosI, Martínez-BurnesJ, et al.The importance of animal models in biomedical research: Current insights and applications. Animals (Basel), 2023; 13(7):1223.
78.
AmestyMV, ChamorroCI, López-PereiraP, et al.Creation of tissue-engineered urethras for large urethral defect repair in a rabbit experimental model. Front Pediatr, 2021; 9:691131.
79.
SievertKD, Selent-StierC, WiedemannJ, et al.Introducing a large animal model to create urethral stricture similar to human stricture disease: A comparative experimental microscopic study. J Urol, 2012; 187(3):1101–1109.
80.
KarapanosL. In search of the ideal animal model for urethral strictures for therapeutic purposes. Transl Androl Urol, 2022; 11(11):1466–1469.
81.
LowLA, MummeryC, BerridgeBR, et al.Organs-on-chips: Into the next decade. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2021; 20(5):345–361.
82.
van SteenbeekFG, HytonenMK, LeegwaterPA, et al.The canine era: The rise of a biomedical model. Anim Genet, 2016; 47(5):519–527.
83.
SilvermanS, LongCD. The diagnosis of urinary incontinence and abnormal urination in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract, 2000; 30(2):427–448.
84.
SwitonskiM, DzimiraS, AleksiewiczR, et al.Hypospadias is not rare in dogs: Five new cases, a retrospective study, and a review of the literature. Sex Dev, 2018; 12(5):244–250.
85.
DhawanD, Ramos-VaraJA, UtturkarSM, et al.Identification of a naturally-occurring canine model for early detection and intervention research in high grade urothelial carcinoma. Front Oncol, 2022; 12:1011969.
86.
EliaE, BrownellD, ChabaudS, et al.Tissue engineering for gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 24(1):9.
87.
de GraafP, RamadanR, LinssenEC, et al.The multilayered structure of the human corpus spongiosum. Histol Histopathol, 2018; 33(12):1335–1345.
88.
OttenhofSR, de GraafP, SoeterikTF, et al.Architecture of the corpus spongiosum: An anatomical study. J Urol, 2016; 196(3):919–925.
89.
Ruiz-ZapataAM, FeolaAJ, HeesakkersJ, et al.Biomechanical properties of the pelvic floor and its relation to pelvic floor disorders. European Urology Supplements, 2018; 17(3):80–90.
90.
BalliM, VitaliF, JaniszewskiA, et al.Autologous micrograft accelerates endogenous wound healing response through ERK-induced cell migration. Cell Death Differ, 2020; 27(5):1520–1538.
91.
JuulN, WillacyO, MamandDR, et al.Insights into cellular behavior and micromolecular communication in urothelial micrografts. Sci Rep, 2023; 13(1):13589.
92.
QuinteroEC, MachadoJFE, RoblesRAD. Meek micrografting history, indications, technique, physiology and experience: A review article. J Wound Care, 2018; 27(Sup2):S12–S18.
93.
MuidermanAK. Hair restoration surgery through micrografting techniques. Plast Surg Nurs, 2001; 21(3):141–142.
94.
ChamorroCI, ZeiaiS, JuulN, et al.Exploring the concept of in vivo guided tissue engineering by a single-stage surgical procedure in a rodent model. Int. J. Mol. Sci, 2022; 23(20).
95.
Reinfeldt EngbergG, LundbergJ, ChamorroCI, et al.Transplantation of autologous minced bladder mucosa for a one-step reconstruction of a tissue engineered bladder conduit. Biomed Res Int, 2013; 2013:212734.
96.
JuulN, AjalloueianF, WillacyO, et al.Advancing autologous urothelial micrografting and composite tubular grafts for future single-staged urogenital reconstructions. Sci Rep, 2023; 13(1):15584.
97.
JuulN, AmoushahiM, WillacyO, et al.Autologous micrografting improves regeneration of tissue-engineered urinary conduits in vivo. Sci Rep, 2024; 14(1):22028.
98.
WillacyO, JuulN, TaouzlakL, ChamorroCI, AjallouieanF, FossumM. A perioperative layered autologous tissue expansion graft for hollow organ repair. Heliyon, 2024; 10(3):e25275.
99.
WillacyO, JuulN, OlsenA, et al.Functional assessment of autologous tissue expansion grafts for vaginal reconstruction in a rabbit model. NPJ Womens Health, 2025; 3(1):11.
100.
XuK, HanY, HuangY, et al.The application of 3D bioprinting in urological diseases. Mater Today Bio, 2022; 16:100388.
101.
CacciamaniGE, OkhunovZ, MenesesAD, et al.Impact of three-dimensional printing in urology: State of the art and future perspectives. A systematic review by ESUT-YAUWP group. Eur Urol, 2019; 76(2):209–221.
102.
Ram-LiebigG, BarbagliG, HeidenreichA, et al.Results of use of tissue-engineered autologous oral mucosa graft for urethral reconstruction: A multicenter, prospective, observational trial. EBioMedicine, 2017; 23:185–192.
103.
SeyhanAA. Lost in translation: The valley of death across preclinical and clinical divide – identification of problems and overcoming obstacles. Transl Med Commun, 2019; 4(1):18.
104.
SalmikangasP, Schuessler-LenzM, RuizS, et al.Marketing regulatory oversight of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) in Europe: The EMA/CAT perspective. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2015; 871:103–130.
105.
PhillipsL, DennermalmN, ÖrtqvistL, et al.A qualitative content analysis of the experience of hypospadias care: The importance of owning your own narrative. Front Pediatr, 2023; 11:1118586.
106.
LewisJM, McGannM, BlomkampE. When design meets power: Design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policymaking. Policy & Politics, 2020; 48(1):111–130.
