↓ Skip to main content

Current Status of Tissue Engineering in the Management of Severe Hypospadias

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
39 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 Status of Tissue Engineering in the Management of Severe Hypospadias
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00283
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tariq O. Abbas, Elsadig Mahdi, Anwarul Hasan, Abdulla AlAnsari, Cristian Pablo Pennisi

Abstract

Hypospadias, characterized by misplacement of the urinary meatus in the lower side of the penis, is a frequent birth defect in male children. Because of the huge variation in the anatomic presentation of hypospadias, no single urethroplasty procedure is suitable for all situations. Hence, many surgical techniques have emerged to address the shortage of tissues required to bridge the gap in the urethra particularly in the severe forms of hypospadias. However, the rate of postoperative complications of currently available surgical procedures reaches up to one-fourth of the patients having severe hypospadias. Moreover, these urethroplasty techniques are technically demanding and require considerable surgical experience. These limitations have fueled the development of novel tissue engineering techniques that aim to simplify the surgical procedures and to reduce the rate of complications. Several types of biomaterials have been considered for urethral repair, including synthetic and natural polymers, which in some cases have been seeded with cells prior to implantation. These methods have been tested in preclinical and clinical studies, with variable degrees of success. This review describes the different urethral tissue engineering methodologies, with focus on the approaches used for the treatment of hypospadias. At present, despite many significant advances, the search for a suitable tissue engineering approach for use in routine clinical applications continues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Engineering 3 8%
Psychology 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#21,094,021
of 23,740,970 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#4,497
of 6,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#381,758
of 444,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#72
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,740,970 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 444,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.