Retraction—Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: a proof-of-concept study

Abstract

Following our Expression of Concern1The Lancet EditorsExpression of concern—Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: a proof-of-concept study.Lancet. 2016; 387: 1359Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar we have now received further information about the conduct of the study by Philipp Jungebluth and colleagues.2Jungebluth P Alici E Baiguera S et al.Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: a proof-of-concept study.Lancet. 2011; 378: 1997-2004Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (371) Google Scholar In letters to The Lancet, the President of the Karolinska Institute has sent the results and conclusions of the final investigation that has identified serious flaws in the conduct and reporting of this study. The report concludes there was scientific and ethical misconduct and requests retraction of the paper. The Lancet is therefore retracting this research article from the scientific record. RETRACTED: Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: a proof-of-concept studyTailor-made bioartificial scaffolds can be used to replace complex airway defects. The bioreactor reseeding process and pharmacological-induced site-specific and graft-specific regeneration and tissue protection are key factors for successful clinical outcome. Full-Text PDF The final verdict on Paolo Macchiarini: guilty of misconductIn this issue, we are retracting two papers by Paolo Macchiarini and co-authors after receiving requests to do so from the new President of the Karolinska Institute (KI), Ole Petter Ottersen. In its final decision, the KI finds that the research reported in the 2011 Lancet paper and elements of a Review published in 2012 “constitutes scientific misconduct”. In his request for retraction, Ottersen states that ”no ethical permit had been obtained for the underlying research. The research was carried out without sufficient support by preclinical data, and the paper presents its data in a way that is unduly positive and uncritical. Full-Text PDF