ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Commercial Biomaterial-Based Products for Tendon Surgical Augmentation: A Scoping Review on Currently Available Medical Devices.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix (dECM) in Tendon Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Corrigendum to "Strong living scaffolds for load-bearing musculoskeletal tissue regeneration" [Mater. Today Bio 35 (2025) 102571].Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Advanced engineering strategies for biomaterial scaffolds application in tendon-bone interface regeneration.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tendon defect is one of the common clinical diseases related to the growing population mean age and the number of athletes. Due to an increasing demand for tendon repair surgical interventions, several tendon augmentation products, capable of guaranteeing the necessary biological and visco-elasticity properties and mechanical support, have been developed. In this regard, commercially available products may be grouped into three main categories: (i) natural, (ii) synthetic, and (iii) hybrid biomaterial-based products. Firstly, to better define the research area of this work, common search engines were employed to acquire information from reports or website portfolios of important competitors in the global tendon repair market. Secondly, public registries and bibliographic databases were also employed to analyse data from registered clinical trials and published clinical studies performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of each product. Ten new products have been launched on the market in the last fifteen years: advantages, disadvantages, and future perspectives regarding their use for tendon augmentation treatment are discussed. Although hybrid biomaterial-based products may be considered as more oriented to the new frontiers of tendon augmentation technology, future improvements, especially focused on both mechanical properties and biocompatibility, are needed. However, scientific innovations must navigate convoluted clinical regulatory paths, which, due to high costs for investors, long development timelines, and funding shortages, hinder the translation of many scientific discoveries into routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.