PLoS ONE (Jan 2014)

Ureter regeneration-the proper scaffold has to be defined.

  • Tomasz Kloskowski,
  • Arkadiusz Jundziłł,
  • Tomasz Kowalczyk,
  • Maciej Nowacki,
  • Magdalena Bodnar,
  • Andrzej Marszałek,
  • Marta Pokrywczyńska,
  • Małgorzata Frontczak-Baniewicz,
  • Tomasz A Kowalewski,
  • Piotr Chłosta,
  • Tomasz Drewa

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106023
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 8
p. e106023

Abstract

Read online

The aim of this study was to compare two different acellular scaffolds: natural and synthetic, for urinary conduit construction and ureter segment reconstruction. Acellular aortic arch (AAM) and poly(L-lactide-co-caprolactone) (PLCL) were used in 24 rats for ureter reconstruction in both tested groups. Follow-up period was 4 weeks. Intravenous pyelography, histological and immunohistochemical analysis were performed. All animals survived surgical procedures. Patent uretero-conduit junction was observed only in one case using PLCL. In case of ureter segment reconstruction ureters were patent in one case using AAM and in four cases using PLCL scaffolds. Regeneration of urothelium layer and focal regeneration of smooth muscle layer was observed on both tested scaffolds. Obtained results indicates that synthetic acellular PLCL scaffolds showed better properties for ureter reconstruction than naturally derived acellular aortic arch.