Cited by 2243D Printing in Biomedical ResearchTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies

Towards organ printing: engineering an intra-organ branched vascular tree

Open access
Visconti, Richard P, Kasyanov, Vladimir, Gentile, Carmine, Zhang, Jing, Markwald, Roger R, Mironov, Vladimir·2010·Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy

Abstract

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Effective vascularization of thick three-dimensional engineered tissue constructs is a problem in tissue engineering. As in native organs, a tissue-engineered intra-organ vascular tree must be comprised of a network of hierarchically branched vascular segments. Despite this requirement, current tissue-engineering efforts are still focused predominantly on engineering either large-diameter macrovessels or microvascular networks. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: We present the emerging concept of organ printing or robotic additive biofabrication of an intra-organ branched vascular tree, based on the ability of vascular tissue spheroids to undergo self-assembly. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: The feasibility and challenges of this robotic biofabrication approach to intra-organ vascularization for tissue engineering based on organ-printing technology using self-assembling vascular tissue spheroids including clinically relevantly vascular cell sources are analyzed. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: It is not possible to engineer 3D thick tissue or organ constructs without effective vascularization. An effective intra-organ vascular system cannot be built by the simple connection of large-diameter vessels and microvessels. Successful engineering of functional human organs suitable for surgical implantation will require concomitant engineering of a 'built in' intra-organ branched vascular system. Organ printing enables biofabrication of human organ constructs with a 'built in' intra-organ branched vascular tree.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1517/14712590903563352

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Autologous EPCs can be easily isolated from peripheral blood, lipoaspirate tissue, and bone marrow in sufficient number, holding promising potential for reendothelization of decellularized livers for clinical application.

    “This results in the easy isolation of autologous EPCs from peripheral blood, lipoaspirate tissue, and bone marrow in sufficient number, holding promising potential for reendothelization of decellularized livers for clinical application [239].”

    From Liver tissue engineering using decellularized scaffolds: Current progress, challenges, and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [239]

    Section 4.3 says large numbers of adipose progenitor cells can be isolated from lipoaspirate and describes their potential for engineering intra-organ vascular trees. But section 4.2 cautions that bone-marrow stem-cell yields are limited, and section 1.4 says reendothelialization of a complete decellularized organ vascular system remains unproven. The paper does not establish easy isolation of sufficient EPCs from all three named sources or their clinical use to reendothelialize decellularized livers; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 105 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Visconti, R. P., Kasyanov, V., Gentile, C., Zhang, J., Markwald, R. R., & Mironov, V.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Riga Stradiņš University (LV)
Corresponding author
Mironov, Vladimir
Venue
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Published
2010-02-04
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
409-420
ISSN
  • 1471-2598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-7682
OpenAlex
W2052215721
Cited by
224
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 12
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • publication.editionName
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p20rr016461-11, 1c06rr015455-01a1, 1c06rr018823-01)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR16434-08, P20RR016434, P20RR021949, 2 P20 RR16461-05A1, C06 RR-015455, C06 RR-018823, P 20 RR-016461)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Keywords
organ printing, self-assembly, 3D tissue constructs, organ engineering, microvascular networks
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood Vessels, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Robotics, Tissue Engineering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review