A Systematic Review of Tissue Engineering Scaffold in Tendon Bone Healing in vivo

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

Background: Tendon-bone healing is an important factor in determining the success of ligament reconstruction. With the development of biomaterials science, the tissue engineering scaffold plays an extremely important role in tendon-bone healing and bone tissue engineering. Materials and Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science) were systematically searched for relevant and qualitative studies published from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2019. Only original articles that met eligibility criteria and evaluated the use of issue engineering scaffold especially biomaterials in tendon bone healing in vivo were selected for analysis. Results: The search strategy identified 506 articles, and 27 studies were included for full review including two human trials and 25 animal studies. Fifteen studies only used biomaterials like PLGA, collage, PCL, PLA, and PET as scaffolds to repair the tendon-bone defect, on this basis, the rest of the 11 studies using biological interventions like cells or cell factors to enhance the healing. The adverse events hardly ever occurred, and the tendon bone healing with tissue engineering scaffold was effective and superior, which could be enhanced by biological interventions. Conclusion: Although a number of tissue engineering scaffolds have been developed and applied in tendon bone healing, the researches are mainly focused on a

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

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