{
  "abstract": "Introduction and Hypothesis: Stem cell therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has been pursued for more than a decade, supported by a compelling regenerative rationale and reassuring early-phase safety data. Yet clinical efficacy has remained modest, complete continence uncommon, and durability uncertain.\n\nMethod: In this Clinical Opinion, we argue that translation has stalled for reasons that are both biological and conceptual: heterogeneous cell products and manufacturing variability undermine reproducibility; endpoints and follow-up are insufficiently harmonized to benchmark against surgical standards; chronically fibrotic periurethral tissue may be biologically quiescent and poorly permissive for regenerative activation; and, fundamentally, continence is a biomechanical phenomenon that cell injections alone cannot replicate.\n\nResults: We propose that future progress will depend on validated potency assays, mechanism-driven trial design, microenvironment priming strategies, and integration of regenerative biology with biomechanical reinforcement (e.g., scaffolds or biologically enhanced support constructs).\n\nConclusion: Until such integration occurs, stem cell therapy for SUI should remain investigational.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "Department of Urogynecology and Vaginal Surgery, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP/EPM), São Paulo, Brazil"
  ],
  "article_type": "research article",
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 1,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Rodrigo A. Castro"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/1bj03zv8zqnyj.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.1007/s00192-026-06830-1",
  "fulltext_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13731496/",
  "id": "1bj03zv8zqnyj",
  "issns": [
    "0937-3462",
    "1433-3023"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06830-1",
  "language": "en",
  "licence": "CC-BY-4.0",
  "licence_label": "CC BY 4.0",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "heading",
      "Clinical Opinion"
    ],
    [
      "openalex",
      "2748|Pelvic floor disorders treatments"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7204010281",
  "pdf_url": "https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00192-026-06830-1.pdf",
  "pmcid": "PMC13731496",
  "pmid": "42631716",
  "published": "2026-08-22",
  "publisher": null,
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/1bj03zv8zqnyj.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-11-08T12:21:41Z",
      "native_id": "PMC13731496",
      "source": "pmc",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06830-1"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [
    {
      "field": "medicine",
      "origin": "openalex:2748|Pelvic floor disorders treatments",
      "subfield": "general"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Stem Cell Therapy for Stress Urinary Incontinence: Why Has Clinical Success Remained Limited?",
  "title_text": "Stem Cell Therapy for Stress Urinary Incontinence: Why Has Clinical Success Remained Limited?",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-11-08T12:21:41Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/1bj03zv8zqnyj",
  "venue": "International Urogynecology Journal",
  "versions": []
}