Introduction

Front. Surg.

Frontiers in Surgery

Front. Surg.

2296-875X

Frontiers Media S.A.

10.3389/fsurg.2017.00004

Surgery

Review

Tissue-Engineered Solutions in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Principles and Practice

Al-Himdani

Sarah

¹ ² ^† Jessop

Zita M.

¹ ² ^† Al-Sabah

Ayesha

¹ Combellack

Emman

¹ ² Ibrahim

Amel

¹ ² ³ Doak

Shareen H.

¹ ⁴ Hart

Andrew M.

⁵ Archer

Charles W.

¹ ⁶ Thornton

Catherine A.

¹ ⁷ Whitaker

Iain S.

¹ ² *

¹Reconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK ²The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK ³Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK ⁴In Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK ⁵Canniesburn Plastic Surgery Unit, Centre for Cell Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK ⁶Cartilage Biology Research Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK ⁷Human Immunology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK

Edited by: Jan A. Plock, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Reviewed by: Fatih Zor, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Turkey; Michael P. Chae, Peninsula Health, Australia

*Correspondence: Iain S. Whitaker, i.s.whitaker@swansea.ac.uk

^†Joint first authors.

Specialty section: This article was submitted to Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

23 02 2017

2017

08 12 2016 18 01 2017

2017

Al-Himdani, Jessop, Al-Sabah, Combellack, Ibrahim, Doak, Hart, Archer, Thornton and Whitaker

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Recent advances in microsurgery, imaging, and transplantation have led to significant refinements in autologous reconstructive options; however, the morbidity of donor sites remains. This would be eliminated by successful clinical translation of tissue-engineered solutions into surgical practice. Plastic surgeons are uniquely placed to be intrinsically involved in the research and development of laboratory engineered tissues and their subsequent use. In this article, we present an overview of the field of tissue engineering, with the practicing plastic surgeon in mind. The Medical Research Council states that regenerative medicine and tissue engineering “holds the promise of revolutionizing patient care in the twenty-first century.” The UK government highlighted regenerative medicine as one of the key eight great technologies in their industrial strategy worthy of significant investment. The long-term aim of successful biomanufacture to repair composite defects depends on interdisciplinary collaboration between cell biologists, material scientists, engineers, and associated medical specialties; however currently, there is a current lack of coordination in the field as a whole. Barriers to translation are deep rooted at the basic science level, manifested by a lack of consensus on the ideal cell source, scaffold, molecular cues, and environment and manufacturing strategy. There is also insufficient understanding of the long-term safety and durability of tissue-engineered constructs. This review aims to highlight that individualized approaches to the field are not adequate, and research collaboratives will be essential to bring together differing areas of expertise to expedite future clinical translation. The use of tissue engineering in reconstructive surgery would result in a paradigm shift but it is important to maintain realistic expectations. It is generally accepted that it takes 20–30 years from the start of basic science research to clinical utility, demonstrated by contemporary treatments such as bone marrow transplantation. Although great advances have been made in the tissue engineering field, we highlight the barriers that need to be overcome before we see the routine use of tissue-engineered solutions.

tissue engineering regenerative medicine stem cells translation bioengineering barriers to translation translational research plastic and reconstructive surgery

MR/N002431/1

Medical Research Council10.13039/501100000265

Royal College of Surgeons of England10.13039/501100000297

Introduction

Reconstructive plastic surgery aims to provide living tissue in order to restore both form and function following a wide range of congenital or acquired defects. Operations are complex, often transcending anatomic boundaries. Versatility resulting from surgery on a full range of tissues including skin, fat, nerve, muscle, bone, and cartilage promotes innovation, and with the recent advances in medical imaging (1), microsurgery (2), vascularized composite allotransplantation (3, 4), nanotechnology (5), cell biology, biomaterials (6), and 3D printing (7–10), treatment options for patients are wider than ever before. Even armed with new reconstructive options based on microsurgical principles and transplantation, surgeons have become increasingly cognizant that there is the real potential for a paradigm shift in reconstructive surgery in the medium term via tissue-engineered solutions. The implementation into practice could potentially eliminate the need for donor sites and their morbidity, reduce hospital stay and associated costs (11).

Relevance of This Article

Contrary to public perception, the diverse workload of reconstructive plastic surgeons comprises a relatively small proportion of purely esthetic procedures (12). The majority of operations undertaken pertain to neoplasia and wound management, with a significant health economic impact (12). Over one million patients are treated per year in NHS England by Plastic Surgeons (13, 14), with evidence suggesting that this workload will continue to increase (15). If you extrapolate these figures worldwide, it is easy to see the clinical need is vast. As a group, reconstructive surgeons are facing more challenging composite defects than ever before coupled with Internet and media savvy patients with increasing expectations (16). Technological innovation in reconstructive surgery in the twentieth century offered the possibility for surgeons to operate on microvascular structures enabling free tissue transfers (2) and extremity replantations. Despite these developments in practice, we are still confronted with shortcomings relating to the availability of donor tissues. In order to overcome this, novel approaches have been investigated. Among these approaches, the most attractive concept is tissue engineering.

Tissue engineering is a modern, interdisciplinary field combining principles of engineering, physics, and the life sciences. It shares a common objective with plastic and reconstructive surgery; “to restore form and function” (17, 18). The long-term aim of tissue engineering is to biomanufacture autologous, vascularized, physiologically relevant solutions to repair and restore complex defects. Successful biomanufacture will depend on the correct blend of cell source, suitable scaffold and ideal microenvironment (19). Answers to these fundamental questions rely on interdisciplinary collaboration between cell biologists, material scientists, biotechnologists, and associated medical specialties (20). Upscaling and widespread use in health services will need close interaction with the cell therapy industry and associated manufacturers.

The surgical community worldwide is becoming increasingly aware of the research landscape. The American Society of Plastic surgeons have highlighted the role of tissue engineering in the future of plastic surgery (21), particularly the need for a focus on translation from bench research to clinical practice. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords recognized the potential of regenerative medicine to impact on the health service and highlighted the current “lack of coordination” in the field as a whole (22, 23). Recommendations included the development of multidisciplinary working groups (basic scientists, clinicians, investors, manufacturing experts, and regulators), as well as governmental support to drive forward the agenda on regenerative medicine.

There is a need to develop NHS capacity with regional facilities licensed for Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), which are engaged with a clinical specialty skilled in the manipulation of cells and the viable insertion of tissue-engineered constructs. Skilled in vascularization and in tissue viability/transfer, plastic surgeons already fulfill this role as an interface specialty delivering complex reconstructive techniques to a broad range of other specialties. The regional service structure of plastic surgery within the NHS would further support their capacity to align with regional cGMP facilities and deliver tissue-engineering solutions to a range of medical and surgical specialties.

Objectives Assess the Shortcomings Of Traditional Reconstructive Options

Up till now, restoration of form and function has relied on the use of autologous (rarely allogeneic) tissue, alloplastic implants, or a combination of the two. Although effective, these options have disadvantages that merit highlighting (Table 1).

Table 1

Advantages and shortcomings of reconstructive solutions for managing tissue defects.

Reconstructive solution	Advantages	Disadvantages
Autologous	No immunological complications No ethical constraints Biologically compatible Minimal degradation Fewer legal restrictions No disease transmission Challenging harvesting cells in aged or diseased	Donor site morbidity Limited quantity of tissue available Two separate operative sites—greater risk and cost
Allogeneic	No donor site morbidity Donor cells may have higher viability Tissue always healthy Greater quantity of available tissue	Temporary (i.e., cadaveric skin used in extensive burns) Tissue typing is required Immunosuppression may be needed Risk of disease transmission Greater legal hurdles Ethical and psychological challenges
Synthetic	Maintain structural integrity Predictable and reproducible physical and mechanical properties Cost effective Avoids concerns over disease transmission	Extrusion Infection Cannot restore all of specialized tissue/organ functions Do not respond to biological cues/grow with patient May provoke an immune/inflammatory/fibrotic reaction Materials safety testing and manufacturing governance
Tissue engineered	Biocompatible Good biofunctionality Good retention of size and shape No donor site morbidity Unlimited expansion of cells/tissues No immunological concerns Mechanical stability	Long-term effect unknown Size often limited by vascularity Costly Tumorigenic potential Difficult to engineer “physiologically relevant/mature tissue”

Tissue-Engineered Solutions

Although tissue-engineered solutions hold great promise, we must be realistic in that contemporary tissue-engineered constructs implanted into immune-competent animal models have been observed to undergo inflammation, fibrosis, foreign body reaction, and degradation (Table 1; Figure 1). One of the major problems remains vascularization of larger volume constructs (24), and an issue coming to the fore in modern literature is the potential for tumorigenesis (25).

Figure 1

Shortcomings of nasal and auricular cartilage tissue engineering.

Provide an Overview Of Fundamental Principles of Tissue Engineering: Cell Source, Scaffold, Assembly Method, and Molecular and Mechanical Signaling

We discuss the multiple considerations for tissue engineering research in order to highlight the complexity of the field as a whole. This supports the argument for multidisciplinary coordination, which is required to take the field forward. The fundamental principles are summarized in Figure 2: cell source, scaffolds, assembly method, subsequent growth (molecular and mechanical signaling), and patient safety. These factors all contribute to the “environment” (19). In simple terms, the cell is required for synthesis of the new tissue matrix, while the scaffold, biomolecules, and the microenvironment provide trophic cues to guide proliferation and differentiation. Growth, induction, and maintenance of maturation are important for providing durability of the tissue-engineered construct.

Figure 2

Considerations in the field of tissue engineering.

Cell Sources

Classical tissue-engineering approaches use tissue-derived cells (not necessarily stem cells) seeded onto scaffolds (36). These cells may be autologous, allogenic, or xenogenic cells; however, autologous cells are the preferred choice due to the lack of immunogenicity. Cells may be further classified based on differences in their differentiating capabilities (Figure 3). Adult somatic cells are fully differentiated, and therefore have restricted future differentiation potential and relatively poor growth, limiting their usefulness for tissue-engineering purposes (37). Progenitor cells are more differentiated than stem cells and are therefore referred to as multipotent rather than pluripotent (38). Stem cells are non-differentiated cells, able to proliferate through multiple generations and differentiate into a variety of cell types (39, 40), and may overcome the limitations of differentiated cells (36) when used for tissue engineering. Pluripotent by definition, stem cells can be derived from embryonic, fetal, or adult (or postnatal somatic) tissue (39). Stem cells are the current preferred cell source for tissue-engineering endeavors and regenerative medicine therapies due to their high potency and capacity for expansion (41). Contemporary research efforts have focused on adult stem cells or progenitor cells for tissue-engineering purposes. The use of embryonic and fetal tissue, although providing pluripotent stem cells with high proliferative potential, raises potential ethical issues as well as safety concerns over tumorigenic potential (42, 43). Adult derived stem cells, which are found among differentiated cells, have been isolated from an increasingly varied number of tissues over the past decade such as bone marrow (i.e., mesenchymal stem cells and hematopoietic stem cells), adipose [adipose-derived stem cells (44)], epithelial (epithelial-derived stem cells), and umbilical cord (cord blood stem cells) tissue (43). Developments made in isolation and culture of adult derived stem cells have improved cell yield during harvest. Subsequent research has focused on manipulating proliferation and differentiation into the desired cell type (45). Adult derived stem cells can only divide a finite number of times and accumulate genetic changes that can limit their supply for tissue-engineering purposes. The discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) by Takahashi and Yamanaka (46) introduced the idea that a mature differentiated cell could be reverted to a state of pluripotency and multilineage potential (Figure 4). While this process, which has been shown to be possible with human cells, creates a potentially limitless source of easily accessible stem cells, it is not without drawbacks (47). Reprograming the cells has raised questions about epigenetic effects in particular, with a number of papers purporting to show DNA errors that have arisen during the process of inducing pluripotency (47, 48). Questions have also been raised regarding immunogenicity of engineered tissues with iPSCs implanted into a genetically identical mouse able to provoke an unexpected T cell-mediated immune response (49).

Figure 3

Advantages and disadvantages of different cell sources utilized in tissue engineering.

Figure 4

Hierarchy of stem cells highlighting different degrees of potency. Yamanaka factors are used to induce differentiated cells to become pluripotent.

To better understand the behavior of specific cell types and their utility for tissue-engineering purposes, there is an increased reliance on advanced technologies (41) to monitor cell phenotype, migration, proliferation, migration, and differentiation both in vitro and in vivo. Impedance-based systems such as iCELLigence system (ACEA Biosciences) as well as Seahorse XF^e24 Extracellular Flux Analyzer are allowing real-time monitoring of cellular processes and offer distinct and important advantages over traditional endpoint assays (Figure 5). Contemporary imaging modalities such as two photon excited fluorescence microscopy (50) and Raman spectroscopy (51), both with high resolution and depth of penetration (>100 nm, 300 nm and 1 mm, 0.4 mm, respectively) are giving researchers clearer insights into the behavior of different cell types (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Advanced technologies for monitoring cell behavior and survival. (A) ICELLigence impedance based cell assay machine. (B) Proliferation curves at different cell seeding densities generated by iCELLigence. (C) The Renishaw inVia confocal Raman microscope allows identification of stem cells based on the scattering of photons due to vibrations of molecular bonds. (D) Seahorse XF^e24 Extracellular Flux Analyzer is used for measurement of cellular bioenergetics.

Further complications arise from the wide donor-to-donor variation in the behavior of cells, particularly stem cell populations, that has become apparent. Human adipose-derived stem cells, an increasingly prevalent source of adult stem cells for studies in tissue engineering, exhibit high donor-to-donor variability with regard to proliferation and differentiation characteristics, and this is not explained simply by donor age (52).

Currently, there is no consensus on the ideal cell source for tissue-engineering purposes. A thorough understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each cell type is crucial to decide on cell selection and the optimal culture conditions in order to engineer specific tissue types.

Scaffold Choices

An appropriate scaffold is crucial to any tissue-engineering strategy. The ideal scaffold provides a framework for cell growth and development, allowing cells to attach, migrate, proliferate, and differentiate while facilitating cellular reorganization into a functional 3D network (Table 2).

Table 2

Advantages and disadvantages of biomaterials utilized currently as scaffolds in tissue engineering.

Scoffold class	Scoffold subtype	Advantages	Disadvantages
Synthetic	Polylactic acid (PLA)	More predictable and reproducible mechanical and physical properties High tensile strength, degradation rate, and elastic modulus (7) More readily available Relatively inexpensive	Immune reaction Lack biological cues (8) Toxicity Infections
	Polyglycolic acid (PGA)
	Polyethylene glycol derivatives (PEG)
Biological	Fibrin	Biocompatibility Cell-controlled degradability Intrinsic cellular interaction Hydrated environment Non-toxic Mucoadhesive Cytocompatible (9)	Batch variations Limited range of mechanical properties Less reproducible Costly Specific processing conditions (10)
	Elastin
	Collagen
	Alginate
	Agarose

Desirable characteristics of scaffolds include the following:

Biomimetic (53)

Biodegradable (with site specific absorption kinetics) (54–56)

Appropriate mechanical strength

Optimal micropores: enabling vascularization and allowing metabolic needs to be met (oxygen and waste product transfer)

Biocompatible (57)

Non-immunogenic (58)

Versatile with regard to manufacturing methods

Functionalization potential (59)

3D control of macroarchitecture

Various nano- and micro-topographies, stiffnesses, and microenvironments appropriate to the proliferation, migration, and maturation of native or engrafted cells

Suitable for clinical grade sterilization

Suitable for industrial production.

Scaffolds are generally classified as biological (organic) or synthetic (inorganic). Engineering of the cell-scaffold construct can be undertaken in vitro in a bioreactor or in vivo by implanting the construct into the body. Advances in engineering, material science, and biomanufacturing technologies have enabled the design and development of more complex scaffolds using self assembly (60), computer modeling, bioprinting, and nanotechnology (60–62). “Functionalized,” “decorated,” or “smart” biomaterials that incorporate of biomolecular moieties on the surface, aim to orchestrate, and optimize the attachment and growth of cells and the synthesis of new tissue (61, 63). Scaffold size is largely limited by the lack of effective vascularization. Most successful work in the field focuses on understanding native tissue constituents and microarchitecture to allow accurate reproduction of functional tissue (64).

Environment

Consideration of the biophysiochemical 3D environment is crucial for tissue engineering. Cells not only require a scaffold for structural and biological support but also require an environment that provides the correct combination of growth supplements, differentiation signals, perfusion of nutrients, gaseous/waste exchange, pH regulation, and mechanical forces. The metabolic requirements of different tissues are varied and dictate the perfusion, gaseous/waste exchange, pH, and mechanical environment required. There is an increasing awareness that molecular and mechanical signaling is pivotal in the growth and differentiation of tissue-engineered constructs, and in addition to well-known growth factors such as bone morphogenetic proteins, vascular epithelial growth factor, basic fibroblast growth factor FGF-2, and transforming growth factor-β (65), “induction factors,” including oxygen tension (66–68), mechanical (69), and electrical stimulation (70), guide subsequent proliferation and differentiation of cells. Cells participate in a web of multidirectional interactions within their niches and tissues of residence [interacting with various nanotopographically sized cues (71)]. This has implications during biomimetic tissue engineering, where the cellular environment (biomolecules), scaffold topography, and other external factors (mechanical and electrical stimulation) require regulation. This is complicated by the fact that cells not only respond to multiple stimuli but also have a direct impact on the environment themselves.

Research in this field is at the interface of cell biologists, engineers, materials scientists, and clinicians and is expanding rapidly. Multidisciplinary teams are working on bioreactor technology, which is vital for in vitro tissue engineering. Optimal conditions can to a great extent be applied and controlled through the use of bioreactors to mimic required conditions (72), and specialized bioreactors to help engineer a range of tissues have been developed in recent years (73, 74). Bioreactors are increasingly being used to provide more complex environments, exposing cells to a range of controllable electrical, electromagnetic, biomolecular, and mechanical cues while varying cell–cell or cell–matrix interactions (Figure 6) (73).

Figure 6

Different environmental stimuli and the fundamental components of bioreactor technology.

Current Barriers to Translation

Tissue engineering has the potential for major clinical impact in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Some products using tissue-engineering concepts are already on the market; however, the panacea of functional vascularized composite tissue-engineered constructs is still theoretical. Translation of good basic science research from the laboratory to clinical reality remains a considerable challenge (Figure 7). In addition to meeting the scientific challenges of engineering durable and functional tissue for implantation into patients (75), one must also navigate the complex regulatory processes. The regulations controlling the delivery of stem cell therapeutics to the clinic parallel many of those developed for the pharmaceutical industry (76, 77). Guidelines governing the development of cell-based products can be found on websites for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),¹ the European Medicines Agency,² and related governmental regulatory authorities. The United States Pharmacopeia is an internationally recognized resource defining the currently accepted industry standards for product purity, potency, and quality assurance.³ These targets are hard to meet outside a large, well-equipped commercial enterprise. Many research laboratories attached to clinical facilities do not produce mesenchymal stem cells in accordance with the criteria for either GLP or the more stringent cGMP, both requiring strict operational and certification records relating to all laboratory equipment and reagents used in the cell manufacture process (1, 4, 5).

Figure 7

Barriers to translation in tissue engineering.

A clear understanding of the manufacturing workflow is required to allow autologous and allogeneic tissue-engineered product integration into clinical practice (78). Once cells are obtained from a donor, they must be stored in specialized banks and both “scaled-up” (increasing batch size) and “scaled out” (increasing number of batches). There are several challenges in mass production alone including the monitoring of product yield and ensuring purity, potency, and viability throughout the process. Mass production of autologous tissue requires a facility allowing multiple, parallel, patient-specific production lines. Where scaffolds are required, testing and maintenance of quality attributes needs to be undertaken prior to seeding (78). Additional challenges include storage/transportation, contamination, and obtaining regulatory approval.

The long-term safety, efficacy, and functionality of the products also need to be closely assessed (79). Practical considerations that need to be contemplated include the storage environment and shelf life of the manufactured products.

It is also of interest that tissue-engineered products do not easily conform to either of the traditional Food and Drug Administration classification: biologics or devices (80, 81). Combined scaffold and cell-containing devices may be in more than one classification category. For devices, a single confirmatory study is often sufficient for FDA approval. If the product is regulated as a biologic, it must be reviewed and approved by the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. If regulated as a drug, several further phases are required prior to FDA approval. Although these regulatory processes above present significant challenges, many countries do have streamlined regulatory processes that might reduce the obstacles faced (82).

Tissue Engineering—Where are We Now?

Stable and physiologically relevant (74) tissue replacement with composite engineered tissue remains elusive. Allograft transplantation has been an exciting development for the reconstructive surgeon, but the requirement for long-term immunosuppressive therapy (83), health-care infrastructure, and funding streams means it is not mainstream practice (Table 3). Tissue engineering is a promising alternative and has yielded small successes so far. Atala et al. were the first to report tissue-engineered constructs being used in patients (84). This was followed by several reports between 2008 and 2014 in a range of tissues including the trachea (85, 86), urethra (87), and nasal cartilage (88). Results have been varied; tracheal work is currently under investigation due to the deaths of three out of six patients and for nasal cartilage in particular, there was a question mark whether the tissue was replaced by scar or native tissue (89). The current significant barriers to translation for large-volume tissue replacement are the inability to produce “physiologicallty relevant tissue” (74) and difficulties with vascularization (24). Small constructs may succeed based on local angiogenesis (84, 87); however, the metabolic needs of the implanted cells in larger constructs means prevascularisation or the use of vascular pedicles is likely to be necessary (87).

Table 3

Successful applications of tissue-engineered constructs in humans.

Organ/tissue	No. of patients	Cell source	Outcomes	Reference
Bladder	7	Bladder urothelial and muscle cells	Improved volume and compliance with no metabolic consequences at mean 46 months follow-up	Atala et al. (84)
Trachea	1	Recipient MSCs	Functional airway with a normal appearance and mechanical properties at 4 months	Macchiarini et al. (85)
Urethra	5	Muscle and epithelial cells	Maintenance of wide urethral calibers without strictures, normal architecture on biopsy at 3 months following implantation	Raya-Rivera et al. (87)
Nasal cartilage	5	Autologous nasal chondrocytes	Good structural stability and respiratory function after 1 year	Fulco et al. (88)
Vaginal organs	4	Vulval biopsy—epithelial and muscle cells	Tri-layered structure on biopsy with phenotypically normal smooth muscle and epithelia with follow-up up to 8 years	Raya-Rivera et al. (90)

Conclusion and Future Perspectives

Surgical reconstruction using bioengineered tissues has the potential to revolutionize clinical practice. To be successful, one must be able to generate tissue constructs in vitro that are morphologically and functionally similar to native tissues. There has been a steady increase in basic science activity in cell therapy and a growing portfolio of cell therapy trials; however, this has not translated to commercial products available for clinical use. To achieve clinical translation, a multidisciplinary approach that successfully integrates engineering and biological methodologies is necessary. Ethical, regulatory, financial, and clinical considerations all present challenges in the translation of tissue-engineered constructs from the laboratory to mainstream clinical practice. Even though The Medical Research Council states that regenerative medicine and tissue engineering “holds the promise of revolutionizing patient care in the 21st century” (91) and that stem cell therapy is viewed as a future “game changer” by the plastic surgery community (92), many are yet to be convinced of this potential within the NHS, with major concerns involving cost-effectiveness, efficacy, reimbursement, and regulation (93). There is little doubt that tissue engineering offers great potential to reduce patient morbidity and mortality, and only co-ordinated and prolonged liaison between clinicians, scientists, and industry will move this from potential to reality.

Glossary Cell Biology

Differentiation—The process by which a cell becomes specialized in order to perform a specific function.

Commitment—When a cell becomes dedicated to a specific lineage.

Potency—The array of commitment opportunities available to a cell.

Totipotent—Cells capable of differentiating into any body cell type in addition to extraembryonic or placental cells.

Multipotent—Cells capable of differentiating into multiple cell types along one lineage (e.g., hematopoietic stem cells).

Pluripotent—Cells that may differentiate into tissues derived from all three germ cell layers.

Unipotent—Cells only capable of differentiating into one cell type (e.g., spermatogonial stem cells).

Clonal—A population of identical cells derived from the same cell.

Polyclonal—A population of cells derived from multiple clones.

Progenitor—A cell that has limited potency, but is able to differentiate to another cell type, or differentiate to its target cell lineage.

Embryonic stem cells—Embryonically derived pluripotent cells that are obtained from the inner cell mass.

Induced pluripotent stem cells—Differentiated cells that are reverted to their pluripotent state via a set of transcription factors.

Autologous—Cells or tissues obtained from the same individual.

Allogeneic—Cells or tissues obtained from a different individual of the same species.

Xenogeneic—Cells or tissues obtained from a different species.

Extracellular matrix—Biomolecules synthesized by the cell to provide a suitable environment to support surrounding cells and maintain tissue integrity in response to biochemical and mechanical cues.

Biomaterials/Scaffolds

Scaffold—A 3D biomaterial construct that defines the geometry of the replacement tissue and provides environmental cues that promote tissue regeneration.

Biomimetic—Human-made substances, e.g., scaffolds that imitate nature.

Functionalization—The modification of scaffolds with bioactive material to enhance the biocompatibility of the scaffold.

Nanotechnology—Technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nm, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.

Biomolecular factors—Biomolecular factors include growth factors, transcription factors, and components of the extracellular matrix.

Mechanical factors—External environmental stimuli such as forces generated during everyday movement.

Manufacturing

Bioprinting—the process of generating spatially controlled cell patterns using 3D printing technologies.

Bioreactor—System in which conditions are closely controlled to permit or induce certain behavior in living cells or tissues.

Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)—System of management controls for laboratories conducting research to ensure consistency, reliability, reproducibility, and high quality of chemical (including pharmaceutical) tests.

Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guidelines—Regulatory guidelines that outline specific requirements for the handling and processing of human tissue, ensuring safe products of reliable quality.

Scale-out—Increasing the number of batches of an engineered product.

Scale-up—Increasing batch size on an engineered product.

Author Contributions

SA-H and ZJ completed a literature search and contributed to preparing the manuscript. AA-S, EC, and AI contributed ideas and content to the manuscript. SD, AH, CT, and CA critically revised the manuscript. IW conceived, contributed to the preparation of, and critically revised the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The Reconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen) is currently supported by funding from the Royal College of Surgeons of England, British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), Medical Research Council (MR/N002431/1), ABMU Health Board, and Welsh Assembly Government. The authors thank Mr. Steve Atherton and Ms. Amy Shorter, medical illustrators, ABMU Health Board, for figures.

References 1Pratt

Rozen

Chubb

Ashton

Alonso-Burgos

Whitaker

. Preoperative imaging for perforator flaps in reconstructive surgery: a systematic review of the evidence for current techniques. Ann Plast Surg (2012) 69(1):3–9.10.1097/SPA.0b013e318222b7b7

22627495

2Taylor

Daniel

. The free flap: composite tissue transfer by vascular anastomosis. Aust N Z J Surg (1973) 43(1):1–3.10.1111/j.1445-2197.1973.tb05659.x 3Shores

Brandacher

Lee

WPA

. Hand and upper extremity transplantation: an update of outcomes in the worldwide experience. Plast Reconstr Surg (2015) 135(2):351e–60e.10.1097/PRS.0000000000000892

25401735

Khalifian

Brazio

Mohan

Shaffer

Brandacher

Barth

Facial transplantation: the first 9 years. Lancet (2014) 384(9960):2153–63.10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62632-X

24783986

5Nodzo

Hohman

Chakravarthy

. Nanotechnology: why should we care? Am J Orthop (2015) 44(3):E87–8. 6Naderi

Matin

Bahrami

. Review paper: critical issues in tissue engineering: biomaterials, cell sources, angiogenesis, and drug delivery systems. J Biomater Appl (2011) 26(4):383–417.10.1177/0885328211408946

21926148

7Murphy

Atala

. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol (2014) 32(8):773–85.10.1038/nbt.2958 8Gerstle

Ibrahim

Kim

Lee

Lin

. A plastic surgery application in evolution: three-dimensional printing. Plast Reconstr Surg (2014) 133(2):446–51.10.1097/01.prs.0000436844.92623.d3

24469175

9Chae

Rozen

McMenamin

Findlay

Spychal

Hunter-Smith

. Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic surgery. Front Surg (2015) 2:25.10.3389/fsurg.2015.00025

26137465

Kamali

Dean

Skoracki

Koolen

Paul

Ibrahim

The current role of three-dimensional (3D) printing in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg (2016).10.1097/PRS.0000000000003106

26809040

11Golas

Hernandez

Spector

. Tissue engineering for plastic surgeons: a primer. Aesthetic Plast Surg (2014) 38(1):207–21.10.1007/s00266-013-0255-5

24378377

12Whitaker

Boyce

. Dismissing the myths: an analysis of 12,483 procedures. All in a years work for a plastic surgical unit. Internet J World Health Soc Politics (2009) 6(2). 13Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care, England 2012–13. Health and Social Care Information Centre (2015). Available from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB12566 14Hospital Episode Statistics, Outpatient Care. Health and Social Care Information Centre (2015). Available from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalogue?productid=18356&q=title%3a%22hospital+episode+statistics%22&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1#top 15Recommendation for Plastic Surgery Training 2011. UK: Centre for Workforce Intelligence a Report from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (2015). Available from: http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/surgeons/surgical-standards/docs/2011-surgical-workforce-census-report 16Søreide

. Epidemiology of major trauma. Br J Surg (2009) 96(7):697–8.10.1002/bjs.6643 17Sterodimas

De Faria

Correa

Pitanguy

. Tissue engineering in plastic surgery: an up-to-date review of the current literature. Ann Plast Surg (2009) 62(1):97–103.10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181788ec9

19131730

18Skalak

Fox

. Tissue Engineering: Proceeding of a Workshop Held at Granlibakken, Lake Tahoe, California. New York: Liss (1998). 19Ikada

. Challenges in tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface (2006) 3(10):589–601.10.1098/rsif.2006.0124

16971328

20Pallua

Gröger

. Tissue engineering and plastic surgery. In: Klein

Neuhann-Lorenz

, editors. Innovations in Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (2008). p. 17–23. 21D’Amico

Rubin

. Regenerative medicine and the future of plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg (2014) 133(6):1511–2.10.1097/PRS.0000000000000212 22Committee GBP HOLSAT. House of Lords – Select Committee on Science and Technology – HL 76. London: The Stationery Office Limited (2013). 23O’Dowd

. Peers call for UK to harness “enormous” potential of regenerative medicine. Br Med J (2013) 347:f4248.10.1136/bmj.f4248 24

Findlay

Dolderer

Trost

Craft

Cao

Cooper-White

Tissue-engineered breast reconstruction: bridging the gap toward large-volume tissue engineering in humans. Plast Reconstr Surg (2011) 128(6):1206–15.10.1097/PRS.0b013e318230c5b2

22094739

Freese

Kokai

Edwards

Philips

Sheikh

Kelley

Adipose-derived stems cells and their role in human cancer development, growth, progression, and metastasis: a systematic review. Cancer Res (2015) 75(7):1161–8.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2744

25736688

Bichara

O’Sullivan

Pomerantseva

Zhao

Sundback

Vacanti

The tissue-engineered auricle: past, present, and future. Tissue Eng Part B Rev (2012) 18:51–61.10.1089/ten.TEB.2011.0326 27Cao

Vacanti

Paige

Upton

Vacanti

. Transplantation of chondrocytes utilizing a polymer-cell construct to produce tissue-engineered cartilage in the shape of a human ear. Plast Reconstr Surg (1997) 100:297–302.10.1097/00006534-199708000-00001 28Kamil

Vacanti

Aminuddin

Jackson

Vacanti

Eavey

. Tissue engineering of a human sized and shaped auricle using a mold. Laryngoscope (2004) 114:867.10.1097/00005537-200405000-00015 29Christophel

Chang

Park

. Transplanted tissue-engineered cartilage. Arch Facial Plast Surg (2006) 8(2):117–22.10.1001/archfaci.8.2.117 30

Nayyer

Patel

Esmaeili

Rippel

Birchall

O’Toole

Tissue engineering: revolution and challenge in auricular cartilage reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg (2012) 129(5):1123–37.10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824a2c1c

25575525

31Brommer

Brama

PAJ

Laasanen

Helminen

van Weeren

Jurvelin

. Functional adaptation of articular cartilage from birth to maturity under the influence of loading: a biomechanical analysis. Equine Vet J (2005) 37(2):148–54.10.2746/0425164054223769 32

Kusuhara

Isogai

Enjo

Otani

Ikada

Jacquet

Tissue engineering a model for the human ear: assessment of size, shape, morphology, and gene expression following seeding of different chondrocytes. Wound Repair Regen (2009) 17(1):136–46.10.1111/j.1524-475X.2008.00451.x

25575525

33Nabzdyk

Pradhan

Molina

Perin

Paniagua

Rosenstrauch

. Auricular chondrocytes—from benchwork to clinical applications. In Vivo (2009) 23(3):369–80. 34Homicz

Schumacher

Sah

Watson

. Effects of serial expansion of septal chondrocytes on tissue-engineered neocartilage composition. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (2002) 127:398–408.10.1067/mhn.2002.129730 35

Jian-Wei

Randolph

Peretti

Nazzal

Roses

Morse

Producing a flexible tissue-engineered cartilage framework using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane as a pseudoperichondrium. Plastic Reconstr Surg (2005) 116(2):577–89.10.1097/01.prs.0000172985.81897.dc

25575525

36Bianco

Robey

. Stem cells in tissue engineering. Nature (2001) 414(6859):118–21.10.1038/35102181

11689957

37Guillot

Cui

Fisk

Polak

. Stem cell differentiation and expansion for clinical applications of tissue engineering. J Cell Mol Med (2007) 11(5):935–44.10.1111/j.1582-4934.2007.00106.x

17979875

Shi

Rafii

Wijelath

Ishida

Evidence for circulating bone marrow-derived endothelial cells. Blood (1998) 92(2):362–7.9657732 39

Thomson

Itskovitz-Eldor

Shapiro

Waknitz

Swiergiel

Marshall

Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science (1998) 282(5391):1145–7.10.1126/science.282.5391.1145

9804556

Dominici

Le Blanc

Mueller

Slaper-Cortenbach

Marini

Krause

Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy (2006) 8(4):315–7.10.1080/14653240600855905

16923606

41Kupfer

Ogle

. Advanced imaging approaches for regenerative medicine: emerging technologies for monitoring stem cell fate in vitro and in vivo. Biotechnol J (2015) 10(10):1515–28.10.1002/biot.201400760

26228468

42Asano

Sasaki

Kitano

Terao

Hanazono

. In vivo tumor formation from primate embryonic stem cells. Methods Mol Biol (2006) 329:459–67.16846010 43da Silva Meirelles

Caplan

Nardi

. In search of the in vivo identity of mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells (2008) 26(9):2287–99.10.1634/stemcells.2007-1122

18566331

Zuk

Zhu

Mizuno

Huang

Futrell

Katz

Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Eng (2001) 7(2):211–28.10.1089/107632701300062859

11304456

45Stock

Vacanti

. Tissue engineering: current state and prospects. Annu Rev Med (2001) 52(1):443–51.10.1146/annurev.med.52.1.443

11160788

46Takahashi

Yamanaka

. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell (2006) 126(4):663–76.10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024

16904174

47Hayden

. Stem cells: the growing pains of pluripotency. Nature (2011) 9:272–4.10.1038/473272a 48

Laurent

Ulitsky

Slavin

Tran

Schork

Morey

Dynamic changes in the copy number of pluripotency and cell proliferation genes in human ESCs and iPSCs during reprogramming and time in culture. Cell Stem Cell (2011) 8(1):106–18.10.1016/j.stem.2010.12.003

21211785

49Zhao

Zhang

Z-N

Rong

. Immunogenicity of induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature (2011) 474(7350):212–5.10.1038/nature10135

21572395

Chang

Zimmerley

Quinn

Lamarre-Jouenne

Kaplan

Beaurepaire

Non-invasive monitoring of cell metabolism and lipid production in 3D engineered human adipose tissues using label-free multiphoton microscopy. Biomater (2013) 34(34):8607–16.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.07.066 51Erlach von

Hedegaard

MAB

Stevens

. High resolution Raman spectroscopy mapping of stem cell micropatterns. Analyst (2015) 140(6):1798–803.10.1039/c4an02346c

25671676

52Bodle

Teeter

Hluck

Hardin

Bernacki

Loboa

. Age-related effects on the potency of human adipose-derived stem cells: creation and evaluation of superlots and implications for musculoskeletal tissue engineering applications. Tissue Eng Part C Methods (2014) 20(12):972–83.10.1089/ten.TEC.2013.0683

24628423

53Bhatnagar

. Biomimetic scaffolds for tissue engineering. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc (2004) 7:5021–3.10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1404387

17271443

54Hollister

. Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater (2005) 4(7):518–24.10.1038/nmat1421

16003400

55Hutmacher

. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials (2000) 21(24):2529–43.10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6

11071603

56Rezwan

Chen

Blaker

Boccaccini

. Biodegradable and bioactive porous polymer/inorganic composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials (2006) 27(18):3413–31.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.039

16504284

57Kim

Mooney

. Development of biocompatible synthetic extracellular matrices for tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol (1998) 16(5):224–30.10.1016/S0167-7799(98)01191-3

9621462

58Lutolf

Hubbell

. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol (2005) 23(1):47–55.10.1038/nbt1055

15637621

59Sanghvi

Miller

KP-H

Belcher

Schmidt

. Biomaterials functionalization using a novel peptide that selectively binds to a conducting polymer. Nat Mater (2005) 4(6):496–502.10.1038/nmat1397

15895095

60Barnes

Sell

Boland

Simpson

Bowlin

. Nanofiber technology: designing the next generation of tissue engineering scaffolds. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (2007) 59(14):1413–33.10.1016/j.addr.2007.04.022

17916396

61Furth

Atala

Van Dyke

. Smart biomaterials design for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Biomaterials (2007) 28(34):5068–73.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.042

17706763

62Wong

Tay

Wen

. Engineered polymeric biomaterials for tissue engineering. Curr Tissue Eng (2012) 1:41–53. 63Anderson

Burdick

Langer

. Materials science. Smart biomaterials. Science (2004) 305(5692):1923–4.10.1126/science.1099987 64Lanza

Langer

Vacanti

. Principles of Tissue Engineering. 4th ed. Academic Press (2013). 1 p. 65Chen

F-M

Zhang

Z-F

. Toward delivery of multiple growth factors in tissue engineering. Biomaterials (2010) 31(24):6279–308.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.053

20493521

66Leijten

Georgi

Moreira Teixeira

van Blitterswijk

Post

Karperien

. Metabolic programming of mesenchymal stromal cells by oxygen tension directs chondrogenic cell fate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2014) 111(38):13954–9.10.1073/pnas.1410977111

25205812

67Fotia

Massa

Boriani

Baldini

Granchi

. Prolonged exposure to hypoxic milieu improves the osteogenic potential of adipose derived stem cells. J Cell Biochem (2015) 116(7):1442–53.10.1002/jcb.25106

25648991

68De Miguel

Alcaina

la Maza de

Lopez-Iglesias

. Cell metabolism under microenvironmental low oxygen tension levels in stemness, proliferation and pluripotency. Curr Mol Med (2015) 15(4):343–59.10.2174/1566524015666150505160406

25941818

Correia

Panadero

Ribeiro

Sencadas

Rocha

Gomez Ribelles

Design and validation of a biomechanical bioreactor for cartilage tissue culture. Biomech Model Mechanobiol (2016) 15(2):471–8.10.1007/s10237-015-0698-5 70Hernández-Bule

Paíno

Trillo

MÁ

Úbeda

. Electric stimulation at 448 kHz promotes proliferation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Physiol Biochem (2014) 34(5):1741–55.10.1159/000366375

25427571

71Griffin

Butler

Seifalian

Kalaskar

. Control of stem cell fate by engineering their micro and nanoenvironment. World J Stem Cells (2015) 7(1):37–50.10.4252/wjsc.v7.i1.37

25621104

72Pörtner

Nagel-Heyer

Goepfert

Adamietz

Meenen

. Bioreactor design for tissue engineering. J Biosci Bioeng (2005) 100(3):235–45.10.1263/jbb.100.235

16243271

73Hansmann

Groeber

Kahlig

Kleinhans

Walles

. Bioreactors in tissue engineering – principles, applications and commercial constraints. Biotechnol J (2013) 8(3):298–307.10.1002/biot.201200162

23161827

74Abbott

Kaplan

. Strategies for improving the physiological relevance of human engineered tissues. Trends Biotechnol (2015) 33(7):401–7.10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.04.003

25937289

Hunziker

Spector

Libera

Gertzman

Woo

SL-Y

Ratcliffe

Translation from research to applications. Tissue Eng (2006) 12(12):3341–64.10.1089/ten.2006.12.3341

17518672

76Halme

Kessler

. FDA regulation of stem-cell-based therapies. N Engl J Med (2006) 355(16):1730–5.10.1056/NEJMhpr063086 77Fink

. FDA regulation of stem cell-based products. Science (2009) 324(5935):1662–3.10.1126/science.1173712

19556496

Hunsberger

Harrysson

Shirwaiker

Starly

Wysk

Cohen

Manufacturing road map for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine technologies. Stem Cells Transl Med (2015) 4(2):130–5.10.5966/sctm.2014-0254

25575525

79Berry

Stanek

. The PIP mammary prosthesis: a product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2012) 65(6):697–704.10.1016/j.bjps.2012.02.019

22405818

80Lu

Arbit

Herrick

Segovis

Maran

Yaszemski

. Tissue engineered constructs: perspectives on clinical translation. Ann Biomed Eng (2015) 43(3):796–804.10.1007/s10439-015-1280-0

25711151

81Uppal

Sabbagh

Chana

Gault

. Donor-site morbidity after autologous costal cartilage harvest in ear reconstruction and approaches to reducing donor-site contour deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg (2008) 121(6):1949–55.10.1097/PRS.0b013e318170709e

18520880

82Birchall

Seifalian

. Tissue engineering’s green shoots of disruptive innovation. Lancet (2014) 384(9940):288–90.10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60533-X 83

Whitaker

Duggan

Alloway

Brown

McGuire

Woodle

Composite tissue allotransplantation: a review of relevant immunological issues for plastic surgeons. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2008) 61(5):481–92.10.1016/j.bjps.2007.11.019

18248779

84Atala

Bauer

Soker

Yoo

Retik

. Tissue-engineered autologous bladders for patients needing cystoplasty. Lancet (2006) 367(9518):1241–6.10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68438-9

16631879

Macchiarini

Jungebluth

Asnaghi

Rees

Cogan

Clinical transplantation of a tissue-engineered airway. Lancet (2008) 372(9655):2023–30.10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61598-6

19022496

86Baiguera

Birchall

Macchiarini

. Tissue-engineered tracheal transplantation. Transplantation (2010) 89(5):485–91.10.1097/TP.0b013e3181cd4ad3

20061996

87Raya-Rivera

Esquiliano

Yoo

Lopez-Bayghen

Soker

Atala

. Tissue-engineered autologous urethras for patients who need reconstruction: an observational study. Lancet (2011) 377(9772):1175–82.10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62354-9

21388673

Fulco

Miot

Haug

Barbero

Wixmerten

Feliciano

Engineered autologous cartilage tissue for nasal reconstruction after tumour resection: an observational first-in-human trial. Lancet (2014) 384(9940):337–46.10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60544-4

24726477

89Russell

. The end of the beginning for tissue engineering. Lancet (2014) 383(9913):193–5.10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62110-8 90

Raya-Rivera

Esquiliano

Fierro-Pastrana

López-Bayghen

Valencia

Ordorica-Flores

Tissue-engineered autologous vaginal organs in patients: a pilot cohort study. Lancet (2014) 384(9940):329–36.10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60542-0

24726478

91Medical Research Council. Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells. Available from: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/research/initiatives/regenerative-medicine-stem-cells/ (accessed January 26, 2017). 92Ozturk

Karagoz

Zor

. The future of plastic surgery: surgeon’s perspective. J Craniofac Surg (2015) 26(8):e708–13.10.1097/SCS.0000000000002204

26594981

Davies

Rikabi

French

Pinedo-Villanueva

Morrey

Wartolowska

Quantitative assessment of barriers to the clinical development and adoption of cellular therapies: a pilot study. J Tissue Eng (2014) 5(0):2041731414551764.10.1177/2041731414551764

25383173

¹http://www.fda.gov/.

²http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema.

³http://www.usp.org/.