Sarah Humphries1, Anil Joshi2, William Richard Webb3, Rahul Kanegaonkar3. 1. Institute of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Canterbury Christchurch University, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK. sarahhumphries@doctors.org.uk. 2. Facial Plastics, University Hospital Lewisham, Lewisham, UK. 3. Institute of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Canterbury Christchurch University, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Deformities of the external ear can affect psychosocial well-being and hearing. Current gold-standard reconstructive treatment is autologous costal cartilage grafting despite the vast morbidity profile. Tissue engineering using stem cells and 3D printing can create patient-specific reconstructed auricles with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced morbidity. This review critically analyses recent and breakthrough research in the field of regenerative medicine for the pinna, considering gaps in current literature and suggesting further steps to identify whether this could be the new gold-standard. METHODS: A literature review was conducted. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases were searched using key terms regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, 3D printing, biofabrication, auricular reconstruction, auricular cartilage, chondrocyte, outer ear and pinna. Studies in which tissue-engineered auricles were implanted into animal or human subjects were included. Exclusion criteria included articles not in English and not published within the last ten years. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened. Reference searching was conducted and significant breakthrough studies included. RESULTS: 8 studies, 6 animal and 2 human, were selected for inclusion. Strengths and weaknesses of each are discussed. Common limitations include a lack of human studies, small sample sizes and short follow-up times. CONCLUSION: Regenerative medicine holds significant potential to improve auricular reconstruction. To date there are no large multi-centred human studies in which tissue-engineered auricles have been implanted. However, recent human studies suggest promising results, raising the ever-growing possibility that tissue engineering is the future of auricular reconstruction. We aim to continue developing knowledge in this field.
PURPOSE: Deformities of the external ear can affect psychosocial well-being and hearing. Current gold-standard reconstructive treatment is autologous costal cartilage grafting despite the vast morbidity profile. Tissue engineering using stem cells and 3D printing can create patient-specific reconstructed auricles with superior cosmetic outcomes and reduced morbidity. This review critically analyses recent and breakthrough research in the field of regenerative medicine for the pinna, considering gaps in current literature and suggesting further steps to identify whether this could be the new gold-standard. METHODS: A literature review was conducted. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases were searched using key terms regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, 3D printing, biofabrication, auricular reconstruction, auricular cartilage, chondrocyte, outer ear and pinna. Studies in which tissue-engineered auricles were implanted into animal or human subjects were included. Exclusion criteria included articles not in English and not published within the last ten years. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened. Reference searching was conducted and significant breakthrough studies included. RESULTS: 8 studies, 6 animal and 2 human, were selected for inclusion. Strengths and weaknesses of each are discussed. Common limitations include a lack of human studies, small sample sizes and short follow-up times. CONCLUSION: Regenerative medicine holds significant potential to improve auricular reconstruction. To date there are no large multi-centred human studies in which tissue-engineered auricles have been implanted. However, recent human studies suggest promising results, raising the ever-growing possibility that tissue engineering is the future of auricular reconstruction. We aim to continue developing knowledge in this field.
Authors: Lisenka E L M Vissers; Conny M A van Ravenswaaij; Ronald Admiraal; Jane A Hurst; Bert B A de Vries; Irene M Janssen; Walter A van der Vliet; Erik H L P G Huys; Pieter J de Jong; Ben C J Hamel; Eric F P M Schoenmakers; Han G Brunner; Joris A Veltman; Ad Geurts van Kessel Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2004-08-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Duane L Guernsey; Makoto Matsuoka; Haiyan Jiang; Susan Evans; Christine Macgillivray; Mathew Nightingale; Scott Perry; Meghan Ferguson; Marissa LeBlanc; Jean Paquette; Lysanne Patry; Andrea L Rideout; Aidan Thomas; Andrew Orr; Chris R McMaster; Jacques L Michaud; Cheri Deal; Sylvie Langlois; Duane W Superneau; Sandhya Parkash; Mark Ludman; David L Skidmore; Mark E Samuels Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Hiba Risheg; John M Graham; Robin D Clark; R Curtis Rogers; John M Opitz; John B Moeschler; Andreas P Peiffer; Melanie May; Sumy M Joseph; Julie R Jones; Roger E Stevenson; Charles E Schwartz; Michael J Friez Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2007-03-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Fatemeh Alasti; Abdorrahim Sadeghi; Mohammad Hossein Sanati; Mohammad Farhadi; Elliot Stollar; Thomas Somers; Guy Van Camp Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Louise S Bicknell; Ernie M H F Bongers; Andrea Leitch; Stephen Brown; Jeroen Schoots; Margaret E Harley; Salim Aftimos; Jumana Y Al-Aama; Michael Bober; Paul A J Brown; Hans van Bokhoven; John Dean; Alaa Y Edrees; Murray Feingold; Alan Fryer; Lies H Hoefsloot; Nikolaus Kau; Nine V A M Knoers; James Mackenzie; John M Opitz; Pierre Sarda; Alison Ross; I Karen Temple; Annick Toutain; Carol A Wise; Michael Wright; Andrew P Jackson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 38.330