Tissue engineering as a potential alternative or adjunct to surgical reconstruction in treating pelvic organ prolapse: comment on Boennelycke et al.

Abstract

Dear Editor,We read Boennelycke et al.’s timely review on the emergingfield of tissue engineering for pelvic organ prolapse (POP)repair with interest [1]. The authors emphasise that tissueengineeringcanprovidematerialstoreplaceorrepairdiseasedor degenerative tissue. Researchers seeking to design newmaterials are largely guided by assumptions on why compli-cations occur with the existing materials. From these wesuggestthatmaterialsthatcancontributetoconstructivetissueremodelling (bioabsorbable) while providing appropriate me-chanical properties and durability are what we need toachieve. Avoidance of materials that contribute to chronicinflammation (and perhaps excessive fibrosis) seems desir-able. We suggest that for a bioabsorbable material to lead tolong-lastingrepairs,the introductionofcells(or tissue)isalsoneeded. Our current studies aim to establish which cell (ortissue)/scaffold combination best meets the demands of the invivo conditions. In this regard we have found electrospunpolylactic acid and porcine small intestine submucosa to bothbe promising degradable scaffolds whilst autologous buccalmucosal fibroblasts and lipoaspirate stem cells demonstratethe ability to produce the appropriate extracellular matrix(ECM) proteins that may drive tissue regeneration. In sum-mary,thisisanareaofrealneedwherelessonsfromsofttissueengineering need to be translated into clinical benefit.Reference