Andrea P. Bolaños-Gómez 1
, Luz D. Gutiérrez-Castañeda 2
, Jhonatan S. Santafé-Galvis 1
, María A. Fajardo-Perdomo 2
, Rosangela Casanova-Libreros 3
, Jonathan Carvajal-Veloza 4 
1 Servicio de Urología Pediátrica, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Hospital Infantil Universitario de San José, Bogotá, Colombia; 2 Departamento de Genética, Unidad de Bioingeniería y Nanotecnología, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Hospital Infantil Universitario de San José, Bogotá, Colombia; 3 Unidad de Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones, Servicio de Epidemiología e Investigación, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Bogotá, Colombia; 4 Basic Science Group CBS-FUCS, Medicine Faculty, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), Bogotá, Colombia
*Correspondence: Jhonatan S. Santafé-Galvis. Email: john.santafe01@gmail.com
Objective: To describe the applicability of tissue engineering in the surgical management of urethroplasty and complex hypospadias in pediatric urology. Method: A systematic review was conducted in databases PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid, Medline, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS, over the last three decades, on tissue engineering in the correction of hypospadias and urethroplasty. Results: A total of 33 studies were included, of which 9 were conducted in humans and 24 in animals. The overall assessment of the studies in humans was acceptable. A wide variety of scaffolds was identified, with acellular matrix being the main biological material used, yielding acceptable clinical functional results. Seeding with autologous cells demonstrated better performance and tissue regenerative capacity, the complication rate was variable, and aesthetic outcomes are rarely reported. Conclusions: The application of tissue engineering in hypospadias is increasing, although its efficacy cannot be determined with the current evidence, as adequate randomized clinical studies are lacking. It is a promising option in the management of hypospadias.
Content available only in Spanish.
Content available only in Spanish.
The editorial process consists of 6 stages:
1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.
2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.
3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.
4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.
5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.
6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.