Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Engineering Biomimetic Materials for Skeletal Muscle Repair and Regeneration

Nakayama KH., Shayan M., Huang NF.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Adv Healthc Mater (2019) — 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 Healthc Mater (2019)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
30725530
PMCID
PMC6589032
DOI
10.1002/adhm.201801168
Citations
90

Abstract (original English)

Although skeletal muscle is highly regenerative following injury or disease, endogenous self-regeneration is severely impaired in conditions of volume traumatic muscle loss. Consequently, tissue engineering approaches are a promising means to regenerate skeletal muscle. Biological scaffolds serve as not only structural support for the promotion of cellular ingrowth but also impart potent modulatory signaling cues that may be beneficial for tissue regeneration. In this work, the progress of tissue engineering approaches for skeletal muscle engineering and regeneration is overviewed, with a focus on the techniques to create biomimetic engineered tissue using extracellular cues. These factors include mechanical and electrical stimulation, geometric patterning, and delivery of growth factors or other bioactive molecules. The progress of evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of these approaches in preclinical models of muscle injury is further discussed.

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
Muscle, SkeletalAnimalsHumansTissue EngineeringRegenerationWound HealingEngineeringBiomimetic MaterialsTissue Scaffolds

Browse all related research

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

Related research