Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42792763›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2026

Handheld Bioprinters in Skin Regeneration: Current Landscape, Clinical Promise, and the Road Ahead.

Andrey Kolosov, Yana Khristidis, Daria Revokatova, Polina Bikmulina, Boris Ershov, Raisa Chilova, Anna Solovieva, Peter Timashev, Anastasia Shpichka

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrey KolosovInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Yana KhristidisInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Daria RevokatovaInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Polina BikmulinaInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Boris ErshovInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Raisa ChilovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology No 1, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Anna SolovievaDepartment of Polymers and Composites, N.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Peter TimashevInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Anastasia ShpichkaInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-9918-9979

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation 075-15-2026-308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Portable handheld bioprinters represent a transformative advancement in personalized skin regeneration, bypassing the logistical constraints of stationary lab-based systems by enabling real-time, in situ fabrication of bioengineered constructs directly within the wound bed. This review aims to evaluate the current state of their development and clinical translation. One of the foci is placed on the stringent physicochemical requirements for bioinks, where we examined the critical balance between bioadhesion-facilitated by functional groups-and mechanical cohesion necessary for maintaining structural integrity during deposition, while RGD motifs are considered primarily as promoters of integrin-mediated cell adhesion. Preclinical studies have demonstrated promising effects of bioprinted constructs on wound healing and tissue organization; however, human evidence for handheld and direct in situ skin bioprinting remains limited, and clinical efficacy has yet to be established in controlled studies. Nevertheless, widespread adoption is hindered by inferior printing fidelity relative to stationary counterparts, a lack of standardized GMP-compliant bioink production, and regulatory ambiguity that impedes clear classification as either medical devices or biologics. Practical barriers, including intraoperative sterility assurance and operator training, also remain unresolved. Looking ahead, we discuss how the convergence of, in particular, artificial intelligence for real-time wound morphometry, closed-loop process control, and smart, self-healing biomaterials promises to surmount these obstacles. We conclude that these synergistic innovations may propel handheld bioprinters from experimental prototypes toward clinical tools with the potential to reshape reconstructive surgery and emergency wound care, although their clinical value will require validation in appropriately designed human studies.

Indexed as

clinical trialsin situ bioprintingportable bioprinterskin regenerationtissue engineeringwound healing

Identifiers

PMID42792763
PMCPMC13604557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.