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

Injectable Hydrogels for Chronic Skin Wound Management: A Concise Review

Zawani M., Fauzi MB.

Narrative Review on Diabetic Foot, Chronic Wound, published in Biomedicines (2021) — 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
Biomedicines (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34068490
PMCID
PMC8150772
DOI
10.3390/biomedicines9050527
Citations
47

Abstract (original English)

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a predominant impediment among diabetic patients, increasing morbidity and wound care costs. There are various strategies including using biomaterials have been explored for the management of DFU. This paper will review the injectable hydrogel application as the most studied polymer-based hydrogel based on published journals and articles. The main key factors that will be discussed in chronic wounds focusing on diabetic ulcers include the socioeconomic burden of chronic wounds, biomaterials implicated by the government for DFU management, commercial hydrogel product, mechanism of injectable hydrogel, the current study of novel injectable hydrogel and the future perspectives of injectable hydrogel for the management of DFU.

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