ReviewJournal of tissue engineering
Tissue-engineered blood vessels for clinical translation: Design logic, representative advances and persistent barriers.
Review in Journal of tissue engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tissue-engineered blood vessels are promising alternatives for small-diameter vascular reconstruction, but clinical translation remains limited by thrombosis, compliance mismatch, delayed endothelialization and unstable host remodeling. This review synthesizes representative advances in scaffold design, seed-cell selection, bioactive regulation and biofabrication, emphasizing how these components interact under hemodynamic load. Rather than cataloguing technologies, we argue that translational success depends on matching material architecture, cellular phenotype, immune remodeling and manufacturing constraints to specific clinical indications. Acellular or host-repopulating grafts may be most realistic for urgent trauma or vascular access, whereas coronary and distal peripheral reconstruction require tighter control of endothelialization and mechanics. Future tissue-engineered vessels should be evaluated as indication-specific products with clinically meaningful benchmarks beyond short-term patency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.