↓ Skip to main content

Tissue-Engineered Solutions in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Principles and Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Tissue-Engineered Solutions in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Principles and Practice
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Al-Himdani, Zita M. Jessop, Ayesha Al-Sabah, Emman Combellack, Amel Ibrahim, Shareen H. Doak, Andrew M. Hart, Charles W. Archer, Catherine A. Thornton, Iain S. Whitaker

Abstract

Recent advances in microsurgery, imaging, and transplantation have led to significant refinements in autologous reconstructive options; however, the morbidity of donor sites remains. This would be eliminated by successful clinical translation of tissue-engineered solutions into surgical practice. Plastic surgeons are uniquely placed to be intrinsically involved in the research and development of laboratory engineered tissues and their subsequent use. In this article, we present an overview of the field of tissue engineering, with the practicing plastic surgeon in mind. The Medical Research Council states that regenerative medicine and tissue engineering "holds the promise of revolutionizing patient care in the twenty-first century." The UK government highlighted regenerative medicine as one of the key eight great technologies in their industrial strategy worthy of significant investment. The long-term aim of successful biomanufacture to repair composite defects depends on interdisciplinary collaboration between cell biologists, material scientists, engineers, and associated medical specialties; however currently, there is a current lack of coordination in the field as a whole. Barriers to translation are deep rooted at the basic science level, manifested by a lack of consensus on the ideal cell source, scaffold, molecular cues, and environment and manufacturing strategy. There is also insufficient understanding of the long-term safety and durability of tissue-engineered constructs. This review aims to highlight that individualized approaches to the field are not adequate, and research collaboratives will be essential to bring together differing areas of expertise to expedite future clinical translation. The use of tissue engineering in reconstructive surgery would result in a paradigm shift but it is important to maintain realistic expectations. It is generally accepted that it takes 20-30 years from the start of basic science research to clinical utility, demonstrated by contemporary treatments such as bone marrow transplantation. Although great advances have been made in the tissue engineering field, we highlight the barriers that need to be overcome before we see the routine use of tissue-engineered solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 34 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Engineering 8 8%
Materials Science 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 39 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,003,329
of 24,826,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#265
of 3,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,996
of 316,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,826,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,785 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 316,459 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.