↓ Skip to main content

Current Strategies for the Manufacture of Small Size Tissue Engineering Vascular Grafts

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Current Strategies for the Manufacture of Small Size Tissue Engineering Vascular Grafts
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Carrabba, Paolo Madeddu

Abstract

Occlusive arterial disease, including coronary heart disease (CHD) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD), is the main cause of death, with an annual mortality incidence predicted to rise to 23.3 million worldwide by 2030. Current revascularization techniques consist of angioplasty, placement of a stent, or surgical bypass grafting. Autologous vessels, such as the saphenous vein and internal thoracic artery, represent the gold standard grafts for small-diameter vessels. However, they require invasive harvesting and are often unavailable. Synthetic vascular grafts represent an alternative to autologous vessels. These grafts have shown satisfactory long-term results for replacement of large- and medium-diameter arteries, such as the carotid or common femoral artery, but have poor patency rates when applied to small-diameter vessels, such as coronary arteries and arteries below the knee. Considering the limitations of current vascular bypass conduits, a tissue-engineered vascular graft (TEVG) with the ability to grow, remodel, and repair in vivo presents a potential solution for the future of vascular surgery. Here, we review the different methods that research groups have been investigating to create TEVGs in the last decades. We focus on the techniques employed in the manufacturing process of the grafts and categorize the approaches as scaffold-based (synthetic, natural, or hybrid) or self-assembled (cell-sheet, microtissue aggregation and bioprinting). Moreover, we highlight the attempts made so far to translate this new strategy from the bench to the bedside.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 378 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 14%
Researcher 44 12%
Student > Bachelor 43 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 30 8%
Unknown 131 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 92 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 7%
Materials Science 21 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Other 35 9%
Unknown 148 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,076,654
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#1,439
of 6,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,784
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#26
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,737 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.