Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

3D-Bioprinting for Lung and Tracheal Bioengineering: An Overview

Written By

Palla Ranga Prasad, Ananya Singh, Keisha Gomes, Sutanu Dutta, Jagnoor Singh Sandhu, Naveena AN Kumar, Bharti Bisht, Bhisham Narayan Singh and Manash K. Paul

Submitted: 16 April 2025 Reviewed: 16 April 2025 Published: 05 June 2025

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1010650

Advances in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering IntechOpen
Advances in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering Edited by Manash K. Paul

From the Edited Volume

Advances in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering [Working Title]

Dr. Manash K. Paul, Dr. Bharti Bisht and Assistant Prof. Bhisham Narayan Singh

Chapter metrics overview

39 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The lungs serve a vital role in respiration, which involves exchanging gases and oxygenating the blood. The pulmonary system comprises proximal and distal segments. The trachea (windpipe) functions as an anatomical passageway within the human body for airflow during respiration. Lung and tracheal damage can result from several factors, including pulmonary fibrosis, sarcoidosis, inflammation, injury, congenital defects, and tumor formation, leading to COPD and tracheal cartilage destruction. While there have been various therapies attempted to reconstruct the lung and segmental trachea, such as transplantation, direct anastomosis, suboptimal laser treatment, stenting, autografting, and allografting, none have provided an ultimate solution. Recently, tissue engineering has emerged as a promising strategy to develop functional, biomimetic constructs that avoid the need for long-term transplantation or immunosuppression. Various bioengineering techniques like decellularization, recellularization, electrospinning, and other techniques have successfully reconstructed lung/tracheal constructs. Despite these advancements, replicating an ideal lung and tracheal structure remains a challenge due to factors such as inflammation, lack of proper vascularization, mechanical instability of biomaterials, immune rejection, and graft failure. Recently, 3D-bioprinting is one such approach that has shown promise in mimicking intricate tissue structures. Several attempts have been made to create a 3D-bioprinted lung/tracheal biomimetic substitute, but they have been unsuccessful due to various factors. This chapter aims to explore the fields of lung and tracheal bioengineering. We intend to investigate existing data and identify the challenges of creating an ideal, fully functioning 3D-bioprinted, bioengineered tracheal and lung construct replicating the original lung and trachea.

Keywords

  • 3D-bioprinting
  • lung
  • trachea
  • bioengineering
  • transplantation

1. Introduction

In our respiratory system, the lungs play a crucial role in the physiological function of respiration, involving blood oxygenation and gas exchange [1]. In the human body, the lungs are divided into distal and proximal regions, each with distinct anatomical structures and physiological functions. The distal region of the lung consists of bronchioles, alveolar ducts, alveolar sacs, and alveoli, which are responsible for gaseous exchange, airway collapse, and immune defense [2]. It is also lined by various cell types including a continual layer of airway epithelial cells, alveolar type I, and alveolar type II cells [3]. The proximal region of the lung comprises the two-thirds volume of the lungs, consisting of alveolar spaces, conducting airways, and small airways lined by respiratory epithelium or respiratory mucosa [4]. This epithelium consists of ciliated pseudostratified columnar epithelial cells, basal cells, goblet cells, and various secretory cells [5]. The primary functions of this region include airway conduction, mucociliary clearance to remove debris and pathogens, filtration, and air humidification [6]. Among all these components in the proximal region, the trachea is the most important conducting airway, which facilitates air passage from the nose to the lungs. It is a semiflexible, cartilaginous, and tube-like structure ranging from 10 to 14 cm long and 1.5–2 cm wide [7]. The trachea comprises 18 to 22 D-shaped cartilaginous rings, with C-shaped cartilage forming the anterior and lateral walls. The trachea is vascularized by several segmental arteries that supply blood to the trachea through its lateral wall. Within the tracheal wall, tracheal arteries further divide into anterior and posterior branches, linking with parallel arteries from the other side. The subclavian artery’s tracheoesophageal branches supply blood to the cervical trachea, while the thoracic trachea gets its blood supply from bronchial arteries branching directly from the aorta [8]. This intricate blood supply is crucial for the trachea’s function and healing, making it a critical factor in tracheal surgeries. One of the primary challenges of tracheal reconstruction is the difficulty of re-establishing this essential blood supply, as inadequate new blood vessel formation often leads to graft failure.

In a healthy lung, cell turnover occurs gradually. However, when the lung is damaged, lung stem cells show significant self-renewal, proliferation, and differentiation to maintain cellular balance [9]. After major injuries such as surgical lung lobe removal, extensive repair occurs to compensate and create new alveoli. A group of adult stem cells (ASCs) are involved in repairing and regenerating the lungs in response to injury [1]. Airway basal stem cells (ABSCs) are the primary adult stem cells found in the airway surface. They are characterized by markers Tp63+, Krt5+, PDPN+, NGFR+, and Krt14+. There are different sub-populations within ABSCs, such as “hillock” cells (marked by Krt13+ cell markers), which are involved in forming squamous epithelium [10]. Another variant of basal stem cells, Trp63+ and Krt5+ cells known as distal alveolar stem cells (DASCs), have been identified as a group of cells capable of replacing injured alveolar cells [11]. Some researchers suggest that a set of Trp63+ and Krt5+ cells, termed lineage-negative epithelial precursor (LNEP) cells, are responsible for regenerating alveoli damaged by bleomycin [12]. Multipotent bronchoalveolar stem cells (BASCs) marked by CC10+ and SPC+, located at the bronchioalveolar duct junction, can differentiate into various cell types including bronchiolar epithelium, type 2 (AT2) and type 1 (AT1) cells, aiding in distal airway repair. Pulmonary neuroendocrine cells (PNECs), concentrated at airway bifurcations, act as progenitors during wound or damage-induced healing. LGR6+ cells also demonstrate the ability to differentiate into multiple mature cell types within the bronchioalveolar region and contribute to tissue regeneration [1]. AT2 cells marked by Sftpc+ are specialized stem cells found in distal lung tissues capable of replacing damaged AT1 cells (marked by HOPX+ and AQP5+). Secretory (club) cells also possess the ability to self-renew, differentiate into ciliated cells, as well as de-differentiate into basal cells (Figure 1) [1, 13, 14, 15].

Figure 1.

Role of vasculature in the tracheal segments via tracheal-oesophageal relation. The tracheoesophageal arteries divide into oesophageal and tracheal branches at the location of the tracheoesophageal groove. These tracheal arteries give rise to inferior and superior branches, which connect with the respective tracheal artery branches above and below to supply blood to the tracheal rings. The esophageal branches also supply blood to the membranous trachea [8].

Because stem cells can self-renew, proliferate, and differentiate into various cell lineages, they hold great potential for regenerative medicine [16]. Although the majority of lung regeneration research is conducted using mouse models, it is recognized that the lungs of humans and mice differ significantly biologically. Nonetheless, current research on the human lung suggests that key transcriptional and signaling pathways, as well as cell lineages, are quite comparable [17, 18, 19, 20]. Huang et al. [21] have generated lung progenitor cells from hESC/iPSCs. These cells can differentiate into airway epithelial cells and produce definitive endoderm by enhancing differentiation. After development in vitro and in vivo in immunodeficient mice, the lung progenitors were able to turn into various pulmonary epithelial/progenitor cells, including basal cells, club (Clara) cells, goblet cells, and ciliated cells. The progress in understanding how ESCs and iPSCs can be directed to differentiate in the pulmonary area holds significant therapeutic promise [21]. Recently, chronic respiratory disorders had a significant impact on millions of individuals worldwide. Lung transplantation can be used as a treatment option for patients with end-stage chronic respiratory diseases. However, there are several significant challenges associated with lung transplantation including a shortage of donor lungs, the risk of organ rejection, and post-transplant infections. These challenges highlight the need for advancements in lung regeneration techniques, which could offer alternative treatment options and improve outcomes for patients with chronic respiratory diseases [22, 23]. Recently, tissue engineering approaches have gained immense attention, particularly in the field of airway bioengineering. 3D bioprinting is one such approach that has shown promise in mimicking intricate airway tissue constructs [24]. Despite several attempts, creating a successful 3D-bioprinted airway tissue substitute for airway bioengineering has been challenging due to various factors. This chapter aims to highlight the recent advancements in regenerative medicine and airway bioengineering, the level of customizations achieved in mimicking the physical aspects of airway bioengineering, cellular assembly, and the current gaps for further development toward clinical application (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Human adult lung stem/progenitor cells with their niches. This figure illustrates the small airway system (columnar epithelium), large airway system (pseudostratified epithelium), alveoli, and respiratory bronchioles. The geographical distribution of potential lung epithelial stem/progenitor cells and developed pulmonary cells are shown from the proximal to distal axis. Various region-specific possible stem cell niches are along the airway’s axis, from proximal to distal. Potential progenitor/stem cells remain in their local habitats and can grow into various lung cell types [1].

Advertisement

2. Airway bioengineering

Currently, chronic respiratory disorders continue to cause considerable health burden worldwide. Organ transplantation is the only option for individuals with end-stage airway disorders. However, organ transplantation remains a challenge due to various factors. To address this unmet clinical need, various tissue engineering strategies have been used to create a functional and transplantable tissue or organ. Airway tissue engineering aims to create a fully functional airway biomimetic construct, thus eliminating the requirement of organ transplantation. Additionally, the generation of physiologically relevant artificial tissue constructs for evaluating novel drugs and identifying clinical solutions for chronic respiratory disorders [25]. The prospect of producing lung tissue ex vivo for transplantation is also being investigated via an increasing variety of tissue engineering techniques [26].

Various approaches have been used in airway tissue engineering including cells, scaffolds, growth factors, and fabrication techniques for the creation of fully functional physio-mimetic airway construct [27]. The choice of an ideal scaffold is one of the most controversial debates in airway tissue engineering. An ideal scaffold should be biocompatible, bioactive, non-immunogenic, and non-toxic which imitates the internal environment while maintaining the mechanical properties of the lungs and trachea [23]. Scaffolds can be created from a variety of polymeric materials. These include decellularized matrix, gelatin, collagen, silk fibroin, pluronic F-127, poly-lactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid (PGA), polycaprolactone (PCL), and poly-lactic-glycolic acid (PLGA). These materials can be used individually or in combination with one another [28]. In a preliminary study, Delaere et al. implanted a recellularized decellularized tracheal scaffold which was pre-treated with epithelial stem cells into the recipient’s forearm. After 4 months of implantation, the scaffold transformed into a fully vascularized and regenerated tissue, which could be used to treat tracheal defects [29]. Park et al. in [30] created a 3D ring-shaped scaffold using indirect 3D-printing. The scaffold was made of polycaprolactone (PCL) based silicone bellow and coated with a layer of decellularized tracheal mucosal matrix and human inferior turbinate mesenchymal stromal cell (hTMSC) sheets. They implanted this tracheal graft into rabbits and found successful healing with complete re-epithelization after 2 months [30]. Growth factor selection is also crucial for the regeneration of the airway tissues. Various growth factors including platelet-derived growth factors, epithelial growth factors, basic fibroblast growth factors (bFGFs), vascular epithelial growth factors (VEGF), granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, transforming growth factors (TGF), insulin-like growth factors have been used for tracheal tissue engineering [23]. Apart from selecting biomaterials and growth factors, the choice of fabrication techniques is also crucial for airway bioengineering. Decellularization, electrospinning, and 3D bioprinting are the most commonly used techniques for airway bioengineering [31, 32, 33].

The most widely used technique for creating functional airway replacements over the past decade has involved the use of decellularized scaffolds derived from rodents, birds, pigs, and humans [34]. Decellularization is the process of removing cells from tissue, which leaves behind the proteins of the extracellular matrix that maintain the mechanical and bioactive properties of the tissue [35]. Butler et al. found that using a vacuum-assisted technique for decellularization improves the quality of tracheal grafts for therapeutic use. Acellular grafts have been clinically studied for human tracheal bioengineering [36]. In a study conducted by Shin et al., a decellularized scaffold seeded with chondrocytes was implanted in a rabbit model, resulting in the regeneration of respiratory tissue and neo-cartilage with a low inflammatory response [37].

Currently, most studies recommend 3D bioprinting over other traditional scaffold-fabricating techniques because it has a better ability to mimic and create intricate tissue structures by placing cells, biomaterials, and growth factors in a precise, layer-by-layer manner [38]. With 3D bioprinting, we can achieve high precision and control over factors like porosity, pore size, and overall structure. Additionally, we can accurately place growth factors, drugs, and other biochemicals alongside cells, while maintaining proper control over scaffold fabrication [39, 40, 41]. In 2015, Horvath and colleagues used 3D bioprinting to print a gelatinous protein mixture that contained epithelial and endothelial cells. This resulted in homogeneous and thinner cell layers compared to manual approaches, which are necessary for creating an ideal air-blood barrier. This study represented a significant advancement in validating the printed airway tissues, even though the air-blood barrier system obtained was not suitable for implantation. Nonetheless, it shows great promise for pharmaceutical and in vitro toxicology evaluations using basic lung studies (Figure 3) [42].

Figure 3.

Tissue engineering approaches for airway bioengineering. (A) Decellularization and recellularization involve obtaining biological lung samples from animals and humans. These samples are then treated with a chemical-based decellularization method to remove cellular components and create an extracellular matrix (ECM) based decellularized scaffold. Following decellularization, the acellular lung scaffolds are repopulated with the patient’s stem cells for lung regeneration. (B) Artificial lung scaffolds can be created using various approaches such as electrospinning and 3D-bioprinting by combining cells and synthetic biomaterials. (C) Hybrid lung scaffolds can be created by combining cells and ECM materials with synthetic biomaterials, providing structural integrity and mechanical properties to enhance cell adhesion, proliferation, and viability [25].

Advertisement

3. 3D-bioprinting

The field of bioengineering has expanded over the years to include the creation of new techniques for tissue regeneration, repair, and replacement. This also involves constructing in vitro tissue models to test and screen medications, as well as to understand different disease mechanisms and tissue development. Despite advancements in bioengineering, there is still a lack of intricate tissue models and tissue-tissue interfaces for testing and discovering various drugs. Additionally, there is a shortage of donor tissues available for transplantation or tissue regeneration [40]. These issues, including tissue or organ shortages, challenges with tissue models, and tissue-tissue interface, can be addressed with tissue fabrication technologies [43]. Biofabrication is the creation of a structurally organized, biologically active product using automated methods that involve live cells, biomolecules, and cell aggregates such as biomaterials, microtissues, or hybrid cell materials. This is achieved through bioprinting or bioassembly, followed by a tissue maturation process [43]. In the traditional tissue fabrication method, cells and macromolecules are placed into a scaffold with a porous structure that mimics the characteristics of the extracellular matrix. This method has successfully been used to engineer various tissue constructs, such as cartilage, bone, and skin. However, it has limitations in reproducing the natural structure of tissues and organizing different types of cells in a specific pattern [41]. Moreover, it lacks versatility and reproducibility [43]. These issues can be addressed through three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting, also known as additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping [41]. Using 3D bioprinting, we can create intricate tissue structures by precisely arranging biomaterials and cells layer by layer [40]. The precision and ability of 3D bioprinters to deposit biomaterials accurately, while better mimicking the complex structure of tissues through heterogeneous placement of cells and vasculatures, give them an advantage over traditional scaffold-based methods. In 3D bioprinting, we can achieve high precision and control over porosity, macro-morphology, and pore size, as well as precise placement of growth factors, drugs, DNA, proteins, and other biochemicals alongside cells. This allows for proper control over the fabrication of the scaffold [39, 40, 41]. By coordinating bioink deposition and motorized stage movement, 3D bioprinting creates a 3D tissue construct with pre-programmed geometries and structures made of living cells and biomaterials [43]. Different bioprinting strategies have been developed over the years, each with its own applications, limitations, and advantages. The commonly used bioprinting techniques include stereolithography-based bioprinting [44], inkjet bioprinting [45], extrusion-based bioprinting [46], and laser-based bioprinting [47].

3D bioprinting consists of three main components: the bioink, the bioprinter, and the associated bioprinting procedures. These procedures involve creating a 3D model, depositing the cell-laden bioink, and then incubating the bioprinted organ for maturation [48]. The process of 3D bioprinting involves three main steps: preprocessing, processing, and post-processing. During preprocessing, the targeted organ or tissue is imaged using ultrasound, CT, and MRI to create a 3D model, which is then converted into a file compatible with a 3D bioprinter. In the processing stage, human cell lines are cultured and suspended in bioink that mimics the targeted tissue’s properties. This cell-laden bioink is then precisely deposited layer by layer according to the 3D model to create the living 3D organ or tissue. Finally, in the post-processing stage, the bioprinted organ or tissue is incubated in a bioreactor to mature before being used for drug testing, transplantation, or as a disease model [39, 40, 41].

The three approaches used in 3D bioprinting are mini tissue building blocks, biomimicry, and autonomous self-assembly [49].

3.1 Biomimicry

In this method, a replica of the extracellular and cellular components of an organ or tissue is created by producing specific functional cellular components and replicating the tissues on a microscale level. To achieve this, knowledge of the tissue’s microenvironment, including the arrangement and function of various cell types, the composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM), and the distribution of various insoluble and soluble factors, is essential [49].

3.2 Autonomous self-assembly

In this method of replicating a tissue or an organ, we utilize the process of embryonic organ development. The cellular components in a developing tissue produce their cell signaling, ECM components, and autonomous patterning and organization to achieve their function and architecture. In this method, cells organize themselves and build their environment without needing a scaffold. They form small groups called spheroids, which then come together and organize like they do in embryos. This process relies on understanding how embryos develop and manipulating the environment to mimic those processes. It’s all about letting the cells themselves lead the way in building tissues, just like they do naturally in our bodies as we grow [49].

3.3 Mini tissues

Microtissues are small, functional units that form larger organs and tissues in our bodies. They can be produced and combined in various ways for 3D bioprinting. This can be achieved by assembling self-assembling cell spheres to create a microtissue that mimics the structure and function of the tissue, or by creating accurate high-resolution replicas of a tissue unit and letting them self-assemble into a functional microtissue [49].

Advertisement

4. 3D-bioprinting for lung bioengineering

Efforts have been made to replicate the structure and functions of the alveoli, aiding the study of gas exchange interactions, development of pulmonary disease models, and drug testing and toxicology studies. The major challenge in achieving this is the difficulty in mimicking the complex cell composition in a thin layer and providing a supporting microenvironment. Additionally, it is difficult to mimic the elasticity of the tissues and the gas permeability across the membrane [50]. The distal lung presents the challenge of incorporating different cell types at specific locations to form functional membranes, alongside their complicated geometries. To address this issue, 3D bioprinting approaches have been used. These techniques are necessary to recreate the 3D microenvironment and mimic the organ’s natural system. For studies of the air-blood barrier system, 3D bioprinting is needed to control cell deposition at the micro or nanoparticulate levels. 3D bioprinted models can help to reduce the need for animal testing by mimicking in vivo conditions [42]. Recent advances have improved the control and resolution of printing strategies to enhance cell viability during and after printing. There have also been significant developments in optimizing the mechanical properties of bioinks and printed structures. 3D bioprinting is also necessary for creating organoids and models of lung disease or lung cancer for studying their development and testing drugs (Figure 4) [50].

Figure 4.

A cartoon representation of various 3D-bioprinting strategies. Three different types of 3D bioprinting strategies are widely used. (A) Inkjet-based 3D-bioprinting; (B) extrusion-based 3D-bioprinting; and (C) laser-assisted-based 3D-bioprinting [1].

For bioprinting organ models, the isolation of the respective cell progenitors is required. Often, the isolation of progenitors of the distal lung is challenging due to the presence of proximal cell progenitors that contaminate the sample. This leads to a decrease in efficacy and a decreased level of cell differentiation into the desired types. The bronchioalveolar stem cells are the progenitor cells for the distal lung. These are essential for the repair of damaged epithelial cells. To overcome the contamination of proximal progenitor cells, Alsafadi et al. devised a 3D-printed guide to isolate progenitor cells from individual mice without contamination. This 3D lobe divider (3DLD) has been successfully used in mouse models for the isolation of proximal and distal cell progenitors. This can be used for the isolation of cells for organoid culture [51].

Grigoryan et al. [52] successfully created 3D alveoli-like structures using stereolithography. The structures were printed using a biocompatible bioink and were tested for their normal functions. The printed design included blood vessels that transported oxygenated blood, and the alveoli were filled with gases like oxygen and nitrogen. The researchers observed gas exchange between the 3D structure and the blood, and the system also replicated the rhythmic movement of pulmonary tissue. This technique shows promise for studying air permeability mechanisms in the lungs. However, the 3D-printed structures were larger than natural alveoli and required a supporting block. Additionally, the cells were not seeded in the structure, except for the red blood cells that carried the oxygenated blood. Researchers suggested that the model could be modified to incorporate cells [52]. In 2023, da Rosa et al. developed a 3D bioprinted in vitro lung model using Wharton’s jelly mesenchymal stem cells (WJ-MSC). They isolated and characterized the stem cells using flow cytometry, then differentiated them to form pulmonary cells in spheroids. The resulting cells included alveolar type I cells, alveolar type II cells, ciliated cells, and goblet cells, which were confirmed using histochemistry. The cells were then mixed with sodium alginate and gelatin to create bioink and printed using an extrusion-based bioprinting technique. The 3D structure was analyzed for the expression of markers and cell viability. This study presented a promising new model for in vitro studies using 3D printing techniques (Figure 5) [53].

Figure 5.

Diagrammatic arrangement of pulmonary cells associated with the alveolar-capillary membrane. From a histological perspective, the lungs are very crucial organs. The pulmonary epithelium of the lungs is composed of two main cell types such as alveolar type I and alveolar type II cells, also known as pneumocytes (type I and type II). Both alveolar type I and alveolar type II cells form a complete epithelium of the lung’s periphery region and also play a key role in lung homeostasis. The alveolar epithelium serves as a mechanical barrier to protect the lungs from external environmental factors and maintains the balance of fluid on the alveolar surface through active involvement in the lung’s immunological response. Alveolar macrophages are found close to the capillary endothelial cells and alveolar epithelial membrane. Cells such as fibroblasts are present in the interstitial space between these two cell types [21].

Researchers recently developed a 3D alveolar barrier model using inkjet-based bioprinting. The model replicated the structure and function of the pulmonary system, consisting of alveolar type I cells, alveolar type II cells, lung fibroblasts, and pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells. This model aimed to simulate the physiological properties of the alveolar barrier, such as its shape, thickness, and function. Previous studies had successfully mimicked the function of the alveolar barrier but struggled with replicating the size and shape of the alveolar structures. This new model successfully established the necessary cell–cell and cell-matrix interactions to maintain tissue function. It featured a 3D structured monolayer design, resembling the physiological barrier, and was compared against a non-structured 3D alveolar barrier model. The final membrane was uniform and approximately 10 μm thick. The model also demonstrated interactions between endothelial and fibroblast cells, crucial for lung development. The immunohistological analysis confirmed the expression of barrier proteins and surfactants by the cells. This model has potential applications in studying influenza A pathogenesis, as well as serving as a platform for research on other respiratory diseases and drug screening (Figure 6) [54].

Figure 6.

Schematic illustration of the fabrication of a three-layered alveolar barrier model. (A) The confocal microscopy images of human alveolar cell lines (NCI-H1703 and NCI-H441), human lung microvascular endothelial cells (HULEC-5a), and human lung fibroblast cell (MRC5) stained with phalloidin (Red – F-actin and Blue – nuclei). (B) Schematic illustration of the fabrication of an ultrathin, 3D alveolar barrier model using inkjet-based bioprinting and air-liquid interface system approaches [54].

Advertisement

5. 3D-bioprinting for tracheal bioengineering

The lung is divided into two main parts: the airway and the vasculature. The airways form the core of the pulmonary system and consist of a branched network that runs from the trachea to the terminal bronchioles. The tracheobronchial tree branches dichotomously, extending from the trachea (generation 0) to the terminal bronchioles (generation 23) [55]. These 23 generations of airways have a descending hierarchy of diameter, ranging from 1.5 cm at the trachea to 0.5 mm at the respiratory bronchioles [38]. On average, the trachea is 10–13 cm long. It is made up of 16–20 C-shaped cartilaginous rings located at the front and connected at the back by trachealis muscles. Each ring is about 4 mm tall [56]. The windpipe is lined with a ciliated pseudostratified columnar epithelium consisting of glandular, mucin-producing goblet cells, which moisten and protect the airway [57].

The anatomical features of segmental blood supply and the risk of infection due to continuous exposure to the outer environment pose a serious challenge in reconstructing the trachea. High mortality rates of tracheal stenosis have made the reconstruction of the trachea a great concern. Several attempts have been made to repair the tracheal segments using various bioengineered artificial tissue substitutes. However, none of them have provided an ultimate solution due to multiple issues such as the formation of granulation tissue at the anastomosis site, flattening and softening of the tissue framework, and the absence of functional respiratory epithelium [58].

Recent advancements in 3D bioprinting have shown promise in reconstructing the trachea. Cells and scaffolds are the most crucial aspects for tissue regeneration while meeting the prerequisites for scaffold design and fabrication [59]. To ensure new epithelialization, vascularization, and cartilage formation, an engineered/bioprinted scaffold should exhibit proper biomechanical characteristics and functionality post-implantation. The scaffold must be bioresorbable, meaning it should degrade at a rate that matches the rate of new tissue regeneration. If the degradation is too fast, it may lead to tracheomalacia, while prolonged degradation may result in a foreign body response, stenosis, and scar formation [60]. It has been reported that a PCL scaffold integrated with alginate and type 1 collagen, seeded with chondrocytes, enhances the formation of fibrous tissue post-implantation [61]. The presence of MSCs on tracheal scaffolds has been reported to enhance the development of new tissue upon implantation. Huo et al. [62] developed a strategy for 3D bioprinting of a cartilage-vascularized fibrous tissue-integrated trachea, demonstrating successful regeneration and mechanical function [62]. Park et al. [63] introduced a two-step extrusion-based 3D bioprinting method to create a clinically relevant size trachea-mimetic cellular construct, leading to successful tracheal cartilage formation in a mouse model [63]. Rehmani et al. [64] used 3D bioprinting to create bioengineered tracheal grafts for the reconstruction of anterior tracheal defects in a large-animal model, showing successful tracheal reconstruction and graft incorporation [64]. Shieh et al. [65] investigated the potential of 3D printing for creating customized external airway splints for tracheomalacia, showcasing the possibilities for personalized medical devices in tracheal applications [65]. These studies collectively highlight the potential of 3D bioprinting for tracheal reconstruction, with a focus on tissue-specific bioinks, clinically relevant sizes, and personalized medical devices. A study conducted by Park et al. used 3D-printed PCL-collagen-based scaffolds seeded with human turbinate MSC have been used to regenerate the tracheal epithelium in rabbit models. They observed highly ciliated and mature epithelium on the 3D-printed grafts implanted in rabbit models [66]. In another study, Bae et al. [67] used 3D-bioprinted PCL-alginate-based grafts seeded with MSCs, along with epithelial cells, and observed neo-epithelialization, neo-vascularization, and neo-cartilage formation in rabbit models [63]. Among all available methods of bioprinting, extrusion, stereolithography, and organoid printing were widely adopted. However, considering limitations such as the risk of infection, irritation, and reduced biocompatibility degeneration over time, scaffold-free initiatives have been developed by coupling 3D bioprinting with spheroids of aggregated cells (Figure 7) [69, 70].

Figure 7.

Instant reconstruction of the trachea using 3D bioprinted C-shaped tracheal biomimetic constructs. (A) Diagrammatic representation of repair of tracheal segment defects using direct end-to-end anastomosis. (B) (i-iv) images of direct end-to-end anastomosis surgical procedures used to repair the tracheal segment defects and (v-viii) gross images of reconstructed tracheal segments after 8 weeks of the surgery (Reconstructed trachea are represented by red arrows and the interface of regeneration between the NT and RT is represented by blue dotted line) (Scale bar – 5 mm). (C) Histological staining such as H&E (Hematoxylin and Eosin), SO (Safranin-O), and MT (Masson’s trichrome) are performed in both longitudinal and transverse sections of the reconstructed tracheal segments after 8 weeks of the surgery (Scale bar – 1 mm and 100 μm). (D) Immunofluorescence staining of keratin (green) representing the tracheal epithelium regeneration after 8 weeks of the surgery (Scale bar – 50 and 500 μm). Regenerated trachea: RT and native trachea: NT [68].

Advertisement

6. Challenges and future perspectives

In recent years, 3D bioprinting has emerged as a promising approach for engineering functional tissues and organs. It increases the possibility of creating complex macro- and microscale architecture using multiple cell types. This novel approach holds the potential to address the shortage of donor organs for transplantation. Despite its promises, 3D bioprinting of the respiratory system comes with several challenges that need to be addressed to achieve viable and functional tissue constructs. One of the major challenges is to mimic the complex intricate architecture of the respiratory system. The lung consists of branching airways, alveoli, blood vessels, and intricate tissue organization that contribute to its functioning. Its structure, mechanical properties, dynamic environment, and other key physiological factors make the construction of its biomimetic difficult. Yet another challenge is to achieve the features necessary for pulmonary function, such as microscale resolution and connectivity in both airways and vascular networks [50]. Achieving uniform thickness across the 3D-bioprinted lung tissue is another significant challenge due to the heterogeneity of the structure [71]. However, efforts have been made to address these challenges. One study developed a human alveolar lung-on-a-chip model using inkjet-based bioprinting. They created a micron-thick, three-layered tissue that successfully maintained the structure of the lung model [72].

The complex globular structure of alveoli poses a significant challenge for accurately replicating its shape and function through 3D bioprinting. Current 3D bioprinting techniques struggle to imitate the elasticity of the bronchi and alveoli structures due to the complex microstructure in the respiratory system. This elasticity is important as these structures change in size during breathing [73]. It is also quite challenging to replicate the air permeability mechanism of the lungs using 3D-bioprinting techniques due to the complex structure of the respiratory system. Additionally, accurately replicating the size of alveoli adds to this challenge [74]. Current models have difficulty with these features. However, a recent study focused on constructing alveolar models based on degradable hydrogel microspheres and successfully created an in vitro 3-dimensional endothelial alveolar model with a multicellular composition and vesicle-like structure [75]. Another study reported the fabrication of a human air-blood tissue barrier analog, enabling the creation of thinner and homogenous cell layers necessary for an optimal air-blood tissue barrier [42]. The accurate mimicry of cell–cell and cell-matrix interactions in the lungs poses significant challenges, as these interactions are essential for the proper functioning of the system. Current technologies have limitations in recreating these interactions, prompting researchers to explore alternative strategies. One approach involves using lung ECM-derived hydrogels as model systems to mimic native lung physiology [76].

In bioengineering, researchers often use a polymer scaffold as a framework to create the desired shape and structure of an organ. Matching the degradation rate of the scaffold with the production of a new matrix is crucial for tissue development and functionality. If the scaffold degrades too quickly, the newly formed tissue may not have enough support to survive and integrate properly. Conversely, if the scaffold degrades slowly, it may hinder the growth and development of the new tissue. Some researchers are investigating alternative approaches that avoid using synthetic scaffolds, focusing instead on aggregating cells together to allow them to form a desired tissue structure on their own. These approaches aim to eliminate the challenges and limitations associated with scaffold degradation [50].

Creating airways from different types of cells and maintaining the structure of the lungs presents significant challenges. The cells needed for this process can come from donors or the host’s cells. Keeping the air passages open and ensuring a proper blood supply to the entire lung structure poses further challenges. Lungs are vulnerable to damage and infection due to their constant exposure to the environment [39]. While there have been advancements in 3D bioprinting techniques, each method has its limitations. Traditional fabrication methods struggle to recreate thin, multilayered structures and the spatial arrangement of various cell types [72]. Inkjet printers can cause stress on cells due to the size of the nozzles, affecting cell viability and functionality [77]. Laser-based 3D bioprinting is complex and expensive, and while it offers high precision, it has limitations in producing large-scale constructs [78].

In extrusion-based 3D bioprinting, the standard setup slows down printing speed, negatively impacting cell viability, differentiation, and matrix formation. Increasing printing speed or using larger nozzles could improve speed but might compromise printing quality. Therefore, there is a need to improve extrusion-based 3D bioprinting to shorten printing time for large clinical constructs [63]. Advances in bioink formulation and cell biology show promise for successful bioprinting of complex organ systems. Some researchers have successfully developed 3D lung models using certain types of stem cells and hydrogels, offering a way to mimic native lung physiology and study the interaction between cells and the lung matrix [53, 79, 80].

Advertisement

7. Conclusion

3D bioprinting has revolutionized the field of lung and tracheal bioengineering by offering an innovative approach to replicating the intricate structures of these vital organs. This technology uses advanced printing techniques to layer biocompatible materials, living cells, and growth factors, creating tissue constructs that closely mimic the natural architecture of lung and tracheal tissues. One of the significant advantages of 3D bioprinting is its ability to customize and fabricate complex geometries with high precision, which is essential for replicating the alveolar sacs, bronchioles, and tracheal rings. These advancements offer a promising solution to the shortage of donor organs and the limitations of traditional tissue engineering methods.

The integration of stem cells and bioactive molecules within the bioprinted constructs has shown potential in promoting tissue growth, regeneration, and vascularization, which is essential for the long-term viability and functionality of the engineered tissues. Recent studies have demonstrated partially successful bioprinting of tracheal segments and alveolar structures, highlighting the potential of this technology in addressing respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer, and tracheal stenosis. However, challenges remain, including ensuring mechanical stability, biocompatibility, and integration of bioprinted tissues with the host body. Despite these challenges, ongoing research and interdisciplinary collaboration drive significant progress. Innovations in biomaterials, cell sourcing, and bioprinting techniques continue to enhance the quality and functionality of bioprinted lung and tracheal tissues. Moreover, advances in computational modeling and imaging technologies are aiding in designing and optimizing bioprinted constructs, ensuring better clinical outcomes. As the technology matures, it promises to provide viable alternatives to organ transplants and enable personalized treatments tailored to individual needs. Ultimately, 3D bioprinting for lung and tracheal bioengineering represents a transformative step forward in regenerative medicine, potentially significantly improving patient outcomes and addressing the growing demand for organ replacements.

References

  1. 1. Swami D, Aich J, Bisht B, Paul MK. Reconstructing the lung stem cell niche in vitro. In: Advances in Stem Cells and Their Niches [Internet]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2022. pp. 97-143. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468509722000021
  2. 2. Barrios RJ. Diseases of small airways. In: Pulmonary Pathology [Internet]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2018. pp. 427-444. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780323393089000212
  3. 3. Fronius M, Justus Liebig University Giessen. Mechanical Forces Impair Alveolar Ion Transport Processes: A Putative Mechanism Contributing to the Formation of Pulmonary Edema. Universitätsbibliothek Gießen. London, UK: Intech Open; 2012. Available from: https://jlupub.ub.uni-giessen.de//handle/jlupub/18108
  4. 4. Marshall H, Kenworthy JC, Horn FC, Thomas S, Swift AJ, Siddiqui S, et al. Peripheral and proximal lung ventilation in asthma: Short-term variation and response to bronchodilator inhalation. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2021;147(6):2154-2161.e6
  5. 5. Have-Opbroek AAWT, Otto-Verberne CJM, Dubbeldam JA, Dÿkman JH. The proximal border of the human respiratory unit, as shown by scanning and transmission electron microscopy and light microscopical cytochemistry. The Anatomical Record. 1991;229(3):339-354
  6. 6. Pierce R, Worsnop C. Upper airway function and dysfunction in respiration. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology & Physiology. 1999;26(1):1-10
  7. 7. Brand-Saberi BEM, Schäfer T. Trachea. Thoracic Surgery Clinics. 2014;24(1):1-5
  8. 8. Furlow PW, Mathisen DJ. Surgical anatomy of the trachea. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2018;7(2):255-260
  9. 9. Paul MK, Bisht B, Darmawan DO, Chiou R, Ha VL, Wallace WD, et al. Dynamic changes in intracellular ROS levels regulate airway basal stem cell homeostasis through Nrf2-dependent Notch signaling. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;15(2):199-214
  10. 10. Montoro DT, Haber AL, Biton M, Vinarsky V, Lin B, Birket SE, et al. A revised airway epithelial hierarchy includes CFTR-expressing ionocytes. Nature. 2018;560(7718):319-324
  11. 11. Kumar PA, Hu Y, Yamamoto Y, Hoe NB, Wei TS, Mu D, et al. Distal airway stem cells yield alveoli in vitro and during Lung regeneration following H1N1 influenza infection. Cell. 2011;147(3):525-538
  12. 12. Vaughan AE, Brumwell AN, Xi Y, Gotts JE, Brownfield DG, Treutlein B, et al. Lineage-negative progenitors mobilize to regenerate lung epithelium after major injury. Nature. 2015;517(7536):621-625
  13. 13. Barkauskas CE, Cronce MJ, Rackley CR, Bowie EJ, Keene DR, Stripp BR, et al. Type 2 alveolar cells are stem cells in adult lung. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2013;123(7):3025-3036
  14. 14. Donne ML, Lechner AJ, Rock JR. Evidence for lung epithelial stem cell niches. BMC Developmental Biology. 2015;15(1):32
  15. 15. Ratajczak MZ, Ratajczak J, Suszynska M, Miller DM, Kucia M, Shin DM. A novel view of the adult stem cell compartment from the perspective of a quiescent population of very small embryonic-like stem cells. Circulation Research. 2017;120(1):166-178
  16. 16. Han F, Wang J, Ding L, Hu Y, Li W, Yuan Z, et al. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: Achievements, future, and sustainability in Asia. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2020;8:83
  17. 17. Logan CY, Desai TJ. Keeping it together: Pulmonary alveoli are maintained by a hierarchy of cellular programs. BioEssays. 2015;37(9):1028-1037
  18. 18. Longmire TA, Ikonomou L, Hawkins F, Christodoulou C, Cao Y, Jean JC, et al. Efficient derivation of purified lung and thyroid progenitors from embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10(4):398-411
  19. 19. Mou H, Zhao R, Sherwood R, Ahfeldt T, Lapey A, Wain J, et al. Generation of multipotent lung and airway progenitors from mouse ESCs and patient-specific cystic fibrosis iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;10(4):385-397
  20. 20. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126(4):663-676
  21. 21. Huang SXL, Islam MN, O’Neill J, Hu Z, Yang YG, Chen YW, et al. Efficient generation of lung and airway epithelial cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Nature Biotechnology. 2014;32(1):84-91
  22. 22. Tonelli A, Lane CR. Lung transplantation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: patient selection and special considerations. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 2015;2137:2137-2146
  23. 23. Fishman JM, Wiles K, Lowdell MW, De Coppi P, Elliott MJ, Atala A, et al. Airway tissue engineering: an update. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy. 2014;14(10):1477-1491
  24. 24. Ma Y, Deng B, He R, Huang P. Advancements of 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine: Exploring cell sources for organ fabrication. Heliyon. 2024;10(3):e24593
  25. 25. Shakir S, Hackett TL, Mostaço-Guidolin LB. Bioengineering lungs: An overview of current methods, requirements, and challenges for constructing scaffolds. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2022;10:1011800
  26. 26. De Santis MM, Bölükbas DA, Lindstedt S, Wagner DE. How to build a lung: latest advances and emerging themes in lung bioengineering. The European Respiratory Journal. 2018;52(1):1601355
  27. 27. Fishman JM, De Coppi P, Elliott MJ, Atala A, Birchall MA, Macchiarini P. Airway tissue engineering. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy. 2011;11(12):1623-1635
  28. 28. Dhasmana A, Singh A, Rawal S. Biomedical grafts for tracheal tissue repairing and regeneration “Tracheal tissue engineering: an overview”. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2020;14(5):653-672
  29. 29. Delaere P, Leyn PD. Tracheal allotransplantation after withdrawal of immunosuppressive therapy. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362(2):138-145
  30. 30. Park JH, Park JY, Nam IC, Ahn M, Lee JY, Choi SH, et al. A rational tissue engineering strategy based on three-dimensional (3D) printing for extensive circumferential tracheal reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2018;185:276-283
  31. 31. Hsiung T, James L, Chang SH, Geraci TC, Angel LF, Chan JCY. Advances in lung bioengineering: Where we are, where we need to go, and how to get there. Frontiers in Transplantation. 2023;2:1147595
  32. 32. Bridge JC, Aylott JW, Brightling CE, Ghaemmaghami AM, Knox AJ, Lewis MP, et al. Adapting the electrospinning process to provide three unique environments for a tri-layered in vitro model of the airway wall. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2015;101:52986
  33. 33. Jeong HJ, Nam H, Jang J, Lee SJ. 3D bioprinting strategies for the regeneration of functional tubular tissues and organs. Bioengineering. 2020;7(2):32
  34. 34. Wanczyk H, Jensen T, Weiss DJ, Finck C. Advanced single-cell technologies to guide the development of bioengineered lungs. American Journal of Physiology Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2021;320(6):L1101-L1117
  35. 35. Gupta SK, Mishra NC, Dhasmana A. Decellularization methods for scaffold fabrication. In: Turksen K, editor. Decellularized Scaffolds and Organogenesis [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2017. pp. 1-10. (Methods in Molecular Biology; vol. 1577). DOI: 10.1007/7651_2017_34
  36. 36. Butler CR, Hynds RE, Crowley C, Gowers KHC, Partington L, Hamilton NJ, et al. Vacuum-assisted decellularization: An accelerated protocol to generate tissue-engineered human tracheal scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2017;124:95-105
  37. 37. Shin YS, Lee BH, Choi JW, Min BH, Chang JW, Yang SS, et al. Tissue-engineered tracheal reconstruction using chondrocyte seeded on a porcine cartilage-derived substance scaffold. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2014;78(1):32-38
  38. 38. Mahfouzi SH, Safiabadi Tali SH, Amoabediny G. 3D bioprinting for lung and tracheal tissue engineering: Criteria, advances, challenges, and future directions. Bioprinting. 2021;21:e00124
  39. 39. Vijayavenkataraman S, Yan WC, Lu WF, Wang CH, Fuh JYH. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs for regenerative medicine. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2018;132:296-332
  40. 40. Zhang J, Wehrle E, Rubert M, Müller R. 3D bioprinting of human tissues: Biofabrication, bioinks, and bioreactors. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22(8):3971
  41. 41. Xia Z, Jin S, Ye K. Tissue and organ 3D bioprinting. SLAS Technology: Translating Life Sciences Innovation. 2018;23(4):301-314
  42. 42. Horváth L, Umehara Y, Jud C, Blank F, Petri-Fink A, Rothen-Rutishauser B. Engineering an in vitro air-blood barrier by 3D bioprinting. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(1):7974
  43. 43. Gungor-Ozkerim PS, Inci I, Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A, Dokmeci MR. Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: An overview. Biomaterials Science. 2018;6(5):915-946
  44. 44. Khoeini R, Nosrati H, Akbarzadeh A, Eftekhari A, Kavetskyy T, Khalilov R, et al. Natural and synthetic bioinks for 3D bioprinting. Advanced NanoBiomed Research. 2021;1(8):2000097
  45. 45. Heinrich MA, Liu W, Jimenez A, Yang J, Akpek A, Liu X, et al. 3D bioprinting: From benches to translational applications. Small. 2019;15(23):1805510
  46. 46. Hong N, Yang G, Lee J, Kim G. 3D bioprinting and its in vivo applications. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials. 2018;106(1):444-459
  47. 47. Dey M, Ozbolat IT. 3D bioprinting of cells, tissues and organs. Scientific Reports. 2020;10(1):14023, s41598-020-70086-y
  48. 48. Tiwari AP, Thorat ND, Pricl S, Patil RM, Rohiwal S, Townley H. Bioink: A 3D-bioprinting tool for anticancer drug discovery and cancer management. Drug Discovery Today. 2021;26(7):1574-1590
  49. 49. Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature Biotechnology. 2014;32(8):773-785
  50. 50. Galliger Z, Vogt CD, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A. 3D bioprinting for lungs and hollow organs. Translational Research. 2019;211:19-34
  51. 51. Alsafadi HN, Stegmayr J, Ptasinski V, Silva I, Mittendorfer M, Murray LA, et al. Simultaneous isolation of proximal and distal lung progenitor cells from individual mice using a 3D printed guide reduces proximal cell contamination of distal lung epithelial cell isolations. Stem Cell Reports. 2022;17(12):2718-2731
  52. 52. Grigoryan B, Paulsen SJ, Corbett DC, Sazer DW, Fortin CL, Zaita AJ, et al. Multivascular networks and functional intravascular topologies within biocompatible hydrogels. Science. 2019;364(6439):458-464
  53. 53. Da Rosa NN, Appel JM, Irioda AC, Mogharbel BF, De Oliveira NB, Perussolo MC, et al. Three-dimensional bioprinting of an in vitro lung model. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023;24(6):5852
  54. 54. Kang D, Park JA, Kim W, Kim S, Lee H, Kim W, et al. All-inkjet-printed 3D alveolar barrier model with physiologically relevant microarchitecture. Advancement of Science. 2021;8(10):2004990
  55. 55. Patwa A, Shah A. Anatomy and physiology of respiratory system relevant to anaesthesia. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2015;59(9):533
  56. 56. Holbert JM, Strollo DC, Trachea A, M. Imaging of the normal trachea. Journal of Thoracic Imaging. 1995;10(3):171-179
  57. 57. Reynolds SD, Pinkerton KE, Mariassy AT. Epithelial cells of trachea and bronchi. In: Comparative Biology of the Normal Lung [Internet]. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Academic Press; 2015. pp. 61-81. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780124045774000060
  58. 58. Lee DY, Park SA, Lee SJ, Kim TH, Oh SH, Lee JH, et al. Segmental tracheal reconstruction by 3D-printed scaffold: Pivotal role of asymmetrically porous membrane: Survival outcomes of tracheal reconstruction. The Laryngoscope. 2016;126(9):E304-E309
  59. 59. Joz Majidi H, Babaei A, Kazemi-Pasarvi S, Arab-Bafrani Z, Amiri M. Tuning polylactic acid scaffolds for tissue engineering purposes by incorporating graphene oxide-chitosan nano-hybrids. Polymers for Advanced Technologies. 2021;32(4):1654-1666
  60. 60. Chiang T, Pepper V, Best C, Onwuka E, Breuer CK. Clinical translation of tissue engineered trachea grafts. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology. 2016;125(11):873-885
  61. 61. Lee JY, Park JH, Ahn MJ, Kim SW, Cho DW. Long-term study on off-the-shelf tracheal graft: A conceptual approach for urgent implantation. Materials and Design. 2020;185:108218
  62. 62. Huo Y, Xu Y, Wu X, Gao E, Zhan A, Chen Y, et al. Functional trachea reconstruction using 3D-bioprinted native-like tissue architecture based on designable tissue-specific bioinks. Advancement of Science. 2022;9(29):2202181
  63. 63. Park JH, Ahn M, Park SH, Kim H, Bae M, Park W, et al. 3D bioprinting of a trachea-mimetic cellular construct of a clinically relevant size. Biomaterials. 2021;279:121246
  64. 64. Rehmani SS, Al-Ayoubi AM, Ayub A, Barsky M, Lewis E, Flores R, et al. Three-dimensional-printed bioengineered tracheal grafts: Preclinical results and potential for human use. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2017;104(3):998-1004
  65. 65. Shieh HF, Jennings RW. Three-dimensional printing of external airway splints for tracheomalacia. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2017;9(3):414-416
  66. 66. Park JH, Park JY, Nam IC, Hwang SH, Kim CS, Jung JW, et al. Human turbinate mesenchymal stromal cell sheets with bellows graft for rapid tracheal epithelial regeneration. Acta Biomaterialia. 2015;25:56-64
  67. 67. Bae S-W, Lee K-W, Park J-H, Lee JH, Jung C-R, JunJie Y, et al. 3D bioprinted artificial trachea with epithelial cells and chondrogenic-differentiated bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018;19(6):1624. DOI: 10.3390/ijms19061624
  68. 68. Sun Y, Huo Y, Ran X, Chen H, Pan Q, Chen Y, et al. Instant trachea reconstruction using 3D-bioprinted C-shape biomimetic trachea based on tissue-specific matrix hydrogels. Bioactive Materials. 2024;32:52-65
  69. 69. Jungebluth P, Haag JC, Sjöqvist S, Gustafsson Y, Rodríguez AB, Del Gaudio C, et al. Tracheal tissue engineering in rats. Nature Protocols. 2014;9(9):2164-2179
  70. 70. Kelm JM, Lorber V, Snedeker JG, Schmidt D, Broggini-Tenzer A, Weisstanner M, et al. A novel concept for scaffold-free vessel tissue engineering: Self-assembly of microtissue building blocks. Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;148(1):46-55
  71. 71. Barreiro Carpio M, Dabaghi M, Ungureanu J, Kolb MR, Hirota JA, Moran-Mirabal JM. 3D bioprinting strategies, challenges, and opportunities to model the lung tissue microenvironment and its function. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2021;9:773511
  72. 72. Kim W, Lee Y, Kang D, Kwak T, Lee HR, Jung S. 3D inkjet-bioprinted lung-on-a-chip. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering. 2023;9(5):2806-2815
  73. 73. Kojic M. Multiscale composite 3D finite element for lung mechanics. Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics. 2020;14(1):1-11
  74. 74. Fleck E, Keck C, Ryszka K, DeNatale E, Potkay JA. BIO1: 3D printed, small-scale microfluidic artificial lung. ASAIO Journal. 2022;68(Supplement 2):7-7
  75. 75. Shrestha J, Ghadiri M, Shanmugavel M, Razavi Bazaz S, Vasilescu S, Ding L, et al. A rapidly prototyped lung-on-a-chip model using 3D-printed molds. Organs---Chip. 2019;1:100001
  76. 76. Erben A, Hörning M, Hartmann B, Becke T, Eisler SA, Southan A, et al. Precision 3D-printed cell scaffolds mimicking native tissue composition and mechanics. Advanced Healthcare Materials. 2020;9(24):2000918
  77. 77. Friedrich LM, Gunther RT, Seppala JE. Simulated stress mitigation strategies in embedded bioprinting. Physics of Fluids. 2022;34(8):083112
  78. 78. Yang H, Yang KH, Narayan RJ, Ma S. Laser-based bioprinting for multilayer cell patterning in tissue engineering and cancer research. Essays in Biochemistry. 2021;65(3):409-416
  79. 79. Nizamoglu M, Burgess JK. Current possibilities and future opportunities provided by three-dimensional lung ECM-derived hydrogels. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2023;14:1154193
  80. 80. Gomes KT, Prasad PR, Sandhu JS, Kumar A, Kumar NA, Shridhar NB, et al. Decellularization techniques: Unveiling the blueprint for tracheal tissue engineering. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2025;13:1518905

Written By

Palla Ranga Prasad, Ananya Singh, Keisha Gomes, Sutanu Dutta, Jagnoor Singh Sandhu, Naveena AN Kumar, Bharti Bisht, Bhisham Narayan Singh and Manash K. Paul

Submitted: 16 April 2025 Reviewed: 16 April 2025 Published: 05 June 2025