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

Electroconductivity, a regenerative engineering approach to reverse rotator cuff muscle degeneration

Saveh-Shemshaki N., Barajaa MA., Otsuka T., Mirdamadi ES., Nair LS., Laurencin CT.

Narrative Review on Rotator Cuff, published in Regen Biomater (2023) — 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
Regen Biomater (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38020235
PMCID
PMC10676522
DOI
10.1093/rb/rbad099
Citations
13

Abstract (original English)

Muscle degeneration is one the main factors that lead to the high rate of retear after a successful repair of rotator cuff (RC) tears. The current surgical practices have failed to treat patients with chronic massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs). Therefore, regenerative engineering approaches are being studied to address the challenges. Recent studies showed the promising outcomes of electroactive materials (EAMs) on the regeneration of electrically excitable tissues such as skeletal muscle. Here, we review the most important biological mechanism of RC muscle degeneration. Further, the review covers the recent studies on EAMs for muscle regeneration including RC muscle. Finally, we will discuss the future direction toward the application of EAMs for the augmentation of RCTs.

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research