Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Electrical Stimulation Therapy - Dedicated to the Perfect Plastic Repair

Deng K., Luo R., Chen Y., Liu X., Xi Y., Usman M.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Adv Sci (Weinh) (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Adv Sci (Weinh) (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39680745
PMCID
PMC12199585
DOI
10.1002/advs.202409884
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Tissue repair and reconstruction are a clinical difficulty. Bioelectricity has been identified as a critical factor in supporting tissue and cell viability during the repair process, presenting substantial potential for clinical application. This review delves into various sources of electrical stimulation and identifies appropriate electrode materials for clinical use. It also highlights the biological mechanisms of electrical stimulation at both the subcellular and cellular levels, elucidating how these interactions facilitate the repair and regeneration processes across different organs. Moreover, specific electrode materials and stimulation sources are outlined, detailing their impact on cellular activity. The future development trends are projected from two perspectives: the optimization of equipment performance and the fulfillment of clinical demands, focusing on the feasibility, safety, and cost-effectiveness of technologies.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
AnimalsHumansElectric Stimulation TherapyWound Healing

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research