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

From physical modalities to energy-responsive biomaterials: Current strategies and challenges in tendon-to-bone healing

Zhang L., Tan J., Liao B., Huang M., Huang R., Zhang X.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, published in Bioact Mater (2026) — 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
Bioact Mater (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41334379
PMCID
PMC12666719
DOI
10.1016/j.bioactmat.2025.11.014

Abstract (original English)

Impaired functional regeneration following tendon-to-bone interface (TBI) injury is a major challenge in sports medicine. The rigidity and limited efficacy of existing rehabilitation strategies remain significant constraints. Physical modalities, leveraging advantages such as non-invasiveness, spatiotemporal controllability, and low immunogenicity, offer effective intervention options for the long-term management of TBI healing. However, conventional physical modalities struggle to address the complex pathological microenvironment involved in TBI healing. In contrast, therapeutic strategies utilizing physical energy-responsive biomaterials enable programmable, precise, and dynamic regulation, potentially integrating these advantages while overcoming inherent limitations, thereby opening new and effective therapeutic avenues for TBI healing. This review systematically examines the benefits, current applications, and shortcomings of physical modalities for TBI injuries, with particular focus on parameter-response relationships and underlying biological effector mechanisms. Furthermore, it summarizes the design strategies and application progress of energy-responsive biomaterials in TBI healing and discusses future directions and promising prospects, aiming to address the core therapeutic challenges in achieving robust TBI healing.

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