Tissue Engineering Neovagina for Vaginoplasty in Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser Syndrome and Gender Dysphoria Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vaginoplasty is a surgical solution to multiple disorders, including Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome and male-to-female gender dysphoria. Using nonvaginal tissues for these reconstructions is associated with many complications, and autologous vaginal tissue may not be sufficient. The potential of tissue engineering for vaginoplasty was studied through a systematic bibliography search. Cell types, biomaterials, and signaling factors were analyzed by investigating advantages, disadvantages, complications, and research quantity. Search Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus until March 8, 2022. Term combinations for tissue engineering , guided tissue regeneration , regenerative medicine , and tissue scaffold were applied, together with vaginoplasty and neovagina . The snowball method was performed on references and a Google Scholar search on the first 200 hits. Original research articles on human and/or animal subjects that met the inclusion (reconstruction of vaginal tissue and tissue engineering method) and no exclusion criteria (not available as full text; written in foreign language; nonoriginal study article; genital surgery other than neovaginal reconstruction; and vaginal reconstruction with autologous or allogenic tissue without tissue engineering or scaffold) were assessed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist were used to evaluate article quality and bias. Outcomes: A total of 31 out of 1569 articles were included. Data extraction was based on cell origin and type, biomaterial nature and composition, host species, number of hosts and controls, neovaginal size, replacement fraction, and signaling factors. An overview of used tissue engineering methods for neovaginal formation was created, showing high variance of cell types, biomaterials, and signaling factors and the same topics were rarely covered multiple times. Autologous vaginal cells and extracellular matrix-based biomaterials showed preferential properties, and stem cells carry potential. However, quality confirmation of orthotopic cell-seeded acellular vaginal matrix by clinical trials is needed as well as exploration of signaling factors for vaginoplasty. Impact statement General article quality was weak to sufficient due to unreported cofounders and incomplete animal study descriptions. Article quality and heterogenicity made identification of optimal cell types, biomaterials, or signaling factors unreliable. However, trends showed that autologous cells prevent complications and compatibility issues such as healthy cell destruction, whereas stem cells prevent cross talk (interference of signaling pathways by signals from other cell types) and rejection (but need confirmation testing beyond animal trials). Natural (orthotopic) extracellular matrix biomaterials have great preferential properties that encourage future research, and signaling factors for vascularization are important for tissue engineering of full-sized neovagina.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".