| Literature DB >> 30079130 |
Jacobo Trébol1, Ana Carabias-Orgaz2, Mariano García-Arranz3, Damián García-Olmo4.
Abstract
Faecal continence is a complex function involving different organs and systems. Faecal incontinence is a common disorder with different pathogeneses, disabling consequences and high repercussions for quality of life. Current management modalities are not ideal, and the development of new treatments is needed. Since 2008, stem cell therapies have been validated, 36 publications have appeared (29 in preclinical models and seven in clinical settings), and six registered clinical trials are currently ongoing. Some publications have combined stem cells with bioengineering technologies. The aim of this review is to identify and summarise the existing published knowledge of stem cell utilization as a treatment for faecal incontinence. A narrative or descriptive review is presented. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that cellular therapy, mainly in the form of local injections of muscle-derived (muscle derived stem cells or myoblasts derived from them) or mesenchymal (bone-marrow- or adipose-derived) stem cells, is safe. Cellular therapy has also been shown to stimulate the repair of both acute and subacute anal sphincter injuries, and some encouraging functional results have been obtained. Stem cells combined with normal cells on bioengineered scaffolds have achieved the successful creation and implantation of intrinsically-innervated anal sphincter constructs. The clinical evidence, based on adipose-derived stem cells and myoblasts, is extremely limited yet has yielded some promising results, and appears to be safe. Further investigation in both animal models and clinical settings is necessary to drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, if the preliminary results are confirmed, stem cell therapy for faecal incontinence may well become a clinical reality in the near future.Entities:
Keywords: Anal sphincter; Cell implantation; Cell therapy; Faecal incontinence; Stem cells; Tissue engineering
Year: 2018 PMID: 30079130 PMCID: PMC6068732 DOI: 10.4252/wjsc.v10.i7.82
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Stem Cells ISSN: 1948-0210 Impact factor: 5.326
Faecal incontinence models employed in published preclinical studies and their types of reparation systems
| Section | 2 | 1[ | 3 |
| Anterior: 2 | |||
| Left lateral: 9[ | |||
| Posterior subtotal: 3 | |||
| Proctoepisiotomy: 1 | |||
| 25% excision: 4 | |||
| 50% excision (IAS: 1) (both: 3) | |||
| Total excision EAS: 1 | |||
| 6 | Crioinjury: 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Randomized 2[ | Section: 9[ | ||
Numbers indicate the number of published studies. EAS: External anal sphincter; IAS: Internal anal sphincter.
Bioengineering strategies used with stem cells in published preclinical studies, and scaffolds employed as stem cell carriers to improve their function
| [46,55,56] | Polycaprolactone beads |
| [51] | IAS muscle cells + human ENPC + bilayer collagen and laminin hydrogel |
| [57] | Polyethylene glycol-based hydrogel matrix scaffold |
| [58] | Decellularized EAS |
| [76] | IAS cells + enteric neural progenitor cells (biosphincter) |
| [65] | Polyacrylamide hydrogel carrier (Bulkamid) |
| [61,63] | Gelatin scaffold |
ENPC: Enteric neural progenitor cells; EAS: External anal sphincter; IAS: Internal anal sphincter.
Origin of stem cells used in published preclinical studies, classified by organ origin and transplant type
| Myoblasts: 6 | BM-MSCs: 10[ | Aut: 1 | Aut: 1 | Xenog: 1[ |
| Muscle SCs: 9 | Mononuclear: 1[ | Xenog: 1 | Xenog: 1 | |
| 11[ | 17[ | 3[ | ||
Numbers indicate the number of published studies. ASCs: Adipose-derived stem cells; USCs: Umbilical cord stem cells; BM-MSCs: Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells; Aut: Autologous; Xenog: Xenogeneic.
Overview and concise review of different published studies related to faecal incontinence and stem cell therapy in animal models
| [35] | Rats | 32 | No | AUT/ALLOG BM-MSCs | Sham injury Injury + SSF | Surg section | Surg | Inj IE | Histology | 30 d | ↑ muscular area ↑ Electric response and relaxing | No |
| [36] | Rats | 15 | No | MDSC AUT | No injury Crioinj/crioinj + SCs | Crioinjury | No | Inj IE | Histology | 7 d | SC survive + myofibre differentiation ↑ contractility (NSS) | No |
| [37] | Rats | ?? | No | Myoblast ALLOG | Subcutaneous levator ani thig muscle | No | No | Inj levator ani | Histology | ?? | SC survivor injury necessary for myofibre formation | No |
| [38] | Rab-bits | 31 | No | hUSCs SYNG BM-MSCs ALLOG | Culture medium Saline | Section | No | Inj IE 2 wk later | Clinic EMG Histology | 2 wk | BM-MSC: better continence ↑ act SS ↑ muscle | No |
| [39] | Rats | 120 | Yes | MDSC ALLOG | Saline | Surg section EAS | Surg | Inj IE | Contractility | 13 wk | ↑ SS contractility 7/90 d only repaired | No |
| [40] | Rats | 4 | No | Myoblasts ALLOG | None | No | No | Inj IE | Histology | 10 d | SC survival and integration in sane host tissue | No |
| [41] | Rabbits | 21 | No | MDSC AUT | Saline | Surg section EAS | No | Inj IE 3 wk later | Clinic Histology EMG + MAR | 2 mo 6 mo (control) | ↑ continence since 4w Miotube + myofibre (4wk), SC Survival, ↓ Cd3 and cd34 cells, ↑ proliferate ↑ SS MAR and EMG since 4wk and grew | No |
| [42] | Rats | 224 | No | BM-MSCs ALLOG local/systemic | PBS local/Syst | Surg section EAS | Surg | Inj IE/systemic | Mollecular Histology Neurophisiology | 21 d | Local: ↑ECM acute phase ↑ fibers SS detected 24-48 h (no later) ↑ activity | ↑ mortality nearly SS systemic |
| [43] | Rats | 70 | Yes | BM-MSCs ALLOG local/systemic | PBS local/Syst/Sham injuries | Surg section PNC | No | Inj IE/systemic | MAR + EMG | 10 d | IM/IV improve MAR, IV MAR non after PNC No SC survivor | No |
| [46] | Dogs | 10 | No | Myoblast AUT + bioengineering | SC/nothing | Excision 25% AS | No | Inj IE 3 mo later | CMAP/MAR Histology | 3 mo | ↑ MAR (non SS) Foreign body reaction | No |
| [47] | Rats | 33 | No | MDSCs ALLOG | Sham control (9 | Surg section | Surg | Inj IE | Migration lung-liver AS histology | 30 d | No migration | 2 benign local foci |
| [48] | Rats | 45 | No | Myoblast SYNG | Uninjured crioinj + PBS | Crioinjury | No | Inj IE | Histology/MAR | 2 mo (histo) 6 mo (function) | Restitutio (60 d), SC integrated ↑ MAR 30 d, SS from 60 d | No |
| [49] | Rats | 33 | Yes | MDSC ALLOG | PBS | Surg section (Proctoepisio) | Surg | Inj IE | MAR + EMG Histology | 4 wk | Improve SS EMG + MAR 2wk not 4wk No differences in sphincter thickness | No |
| [50] | Rabbits | 12 | Yes | MDSC AUT | Saline | Surg section EAS | No | Inj IE 3wk later | MRI/MAR + EMG Histology | 4 wk | Labelled cells in MRI + areas, iron + myofibre ↑ ES MAR y EMG | No |
| [51] | Rats | ?? | No | Neural enteric progenitors XENOG | No injury/Crio/Crio + SCs | NO | No | BE: NPC + IAS cells + bilayer | Histology/EMG | 4 wk | ↑ neovascularization normal functioning | No |
| [53] | Rats | 50 | Yes | BM-MSCs ALLOG local/systemic | Saline Uninjured | Excision 25% AS | No | Inj IE/serial IV 24 h/3 wk later | MAR Histology (immunofluoresc) | 5 wk | -↑ P 10d MSCs, 5wk MSC > Saline but no differences with uninjured Histology: ↓gap, fibrosis, scar/ Delayed 3wk no efficacy | No |
| [54] | Rats | 40 | Yes | MDSC ALLOG | PBS | Surg section | Surg | Inj IE | Histology | 3 mo | No differences between groups | No |
| [55] | Dogs | 15 | No | Myobl AUT + PCL beads | PBS Uninjured | Excision 25% AS | No | Inj IE 1mo later | MAR Histology | 3 mo | ↑ SS MAR (50% basal) SC survival + differentiation | No |
| [56] | Dogs | 10 | Yes | Myoblast AUT (A) | (B) Myob aut + PCL beads with bFGF | Excision 25% AS | No | Inj IE 1 mo later | MAR/CMAP Histology | 3 mo | ↑ SS MAR + CMAP B > A SC en 40% (A) vs 100% (B) | No |
| [57] | Rats | 80+ 20 | Yes | MDSC ALLOG + hidrogel | Nothing PBS-hydrogel Collagen/No injury | Surg Section | No | Inj IE | Contractility Histology | 3 mo | ↑Contract and ↑ all F-U in SC-Hydrogel ↑ SS Muscle SC-Hydrogel; ↓ inflammation SC-Hydrogel and collagen | No |
| [58] | Rab-bits | 16 | No | MDSC AUT | Only EAS scafold | Total EAS excision | No | EAS sustitution | Histol (every 3 mo) EMG 2 yr | 2 yr | No inflammation-reject, improve SS 3-6mo Improve EMG (no statistics provided) | No |
| [59] | Rats | 58 | Yes | BM-MSC ALLOG + electrostim | No treatment Elecrostimulation | Excision 50% | No | Inj IE + electrostim | Histology/MAR | 4 wk | 4wk, electrostimulation + 1 dose MSCs: ↑ muscle in injury area ↑ resting P compared with other groups | No |
| [60] | Rats | 32 | No | BM-MSCs ALLOG BM mononuclear | Sham surgery SSF | Surg section | Surg | Inj IE | Histol/morphometry/MAR In vitro contractility | 30 d | SC ↑ regen and SS contractility No differences between SC SC survive 30 d | No |
| [61] | Rats | 32 | Yes | BM-MSCs ALLO + SDF-1 (simult/deferred) | No treatment SDF-1 | Excision 50% | No | Inj IE + SDF-1 ± gelatin scaffold | Histology/MAR | 4 wk | SDF-1 +/- SCs: ↑ resting P and %muscle and muscle organization and ↓ fibrosis (SS) | No |
| [76] | Rabbits | 20 | No | Neural enteric Progenitors AUT | No treatment Sham injury | Excision 50% IAS | No | Sustitution (biosphincter) 6-8 wk later | Histology/MAR | 3 mo | Functional improvement since 1mo, SS with others Regeneration, neovascularization and innervation | No |
| [63] | Rats | 56 | Yes | BM-MSCs ALLOG + SDF-1 (deferred) | No treatment SDF-1 | Excision 50% | No | Inj IE + SDF-1 ± gelatin scaffold | Histology Morphometry MAR Cytoquines | 8 wk | Plasmid +/- SCS: ↑ MAR, muscle organization Plasmid: ↑ muscle mass SDF-1 sufficient for repairing without SC+ / -scaffold | No |
| [64] | Rats | 36 | Yes | ASCs SYNG | Conventional suture | Surg section | Yes/No | Inj IE biosuture | Histology/MAR | 7 d | No functional differences SC survivor and migration to injury | No |
| [65] | Rats | 58 | Yes | Human ASCs | SSF Bulkamid (hydrogel) | Surg section | Surg | Inj IE | MAR micro-CT Histology | 4 wk | Functional: ↑ SS ASCs and grew: no differences between carriers Morphology: no differences in muscle, > inflammation if ASCs, micro-CT correlation | No |
| [67] | Rats | 60 | No | BM-MSCs ALLOG ± electroacupunct | Sham injury Elecroacupunture SSF acupuncture | Surg section | No | Inj IV | Morphology | 14 d | SC+EA ↑vessels, fibroplasia and ↓ inflammation ↑ muscle SS and homing growth factors (SS). Electroacupunct promotes homing | No |
AUT: Autologous; ALLOG: Allogeneic; SYNG: Syngeneic; XENOG: Xenogeneic; SSF: Saline solution; Surg: Surgical; Inj: Injection; IE: Intrasphincteric; Crioinj: Cryoinjury; NSS: Non-statistically significant; SS: Statistically significant; ??: Unknown; ECM: Extracellular matrix; AS: Anal sphincter; Proctoepisio: Proctoepisiotomy; NPC: Neural progenitor cells; Immunofluoresc: Immunofluorescence; P: Pressure; PCL: Polycaprolactone; F-U: Followup; Histol: Histology; Simult: Simultaneous; Electrostim: Electrostimulation; Electroacupunt: Electroacupuncture.
Overview of published clinical experience in stem cell therapy for faecal incontinence
| [102] | Phase II RCT | 26 | AUT ASCs | Injection fistula | Fibrin glue | No | Subjective | 1 yr | Improvement 60% |
| [68] | Obser-vational | 10 | AUT MB | Injection EAS | No | Anal electrical estimulation 10 + 4 wk | Clinical MAR Morphology | 1 yr | ↓ Wexner and episodes 1 yr, ↑QoL ↑ Voluntary P 1, 6 mo no at 12 Morphology no changes |
| [69] | Obser-vational | = | 5 yr | ↓ Wexner and episodes, ↑QoL ↑ P | |||||
| [70] | Case report | 1 | AUT MB | Injection EAS | No | No | Clinical MAR + EMG | 1 yr | Improved since 6 wk ↑ P and EMG on scar area |
| [71] | Obser-vational | 10 | AUT MB | Injection EAS | No | No | Clinical MAR | 1 yr | MAR SS 18 wk Clinical: 66% 18 wk and 44.4% 1 yr EMG improvement all F-U |
| [72] | RCT double-blind | 18 | ALLO ASCs | Injection EAS | PBS | Surgery | Wexner US EMG | 2 mo | No differences on Wexner ↑ SS muscle area and EMG |
| [73] | Phase II RCT | 24 | AUT MB | Injection EAS | Placebo | Biofeedback 15 d | Wexner, FIQL MAR, NPS US, MRI | 1 yr | SS improve wexner 1 yr, response 60% Partial improvement FIQL 6-12 mo No morphologic differences at 12 mo Transient placebo effect |
AUT: Autologous; ALLO: Allogeneic; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; MB: Myoblast; NPS: Neurophysiology; SS: Statistically significant; QoL: Quality of life; P: Pressure; F-U: Follow-up.