Table 2:
Supplementary fibrous and hydrogel-based nanomaterials employed as wound dressings in surgery.
| Composition | Architecture | Mode of Administration | Animal Model, Wound Type | Skin Wound Closure (control vs. test) | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chitosan-poly(ethylene oxide)-teicoplanin | Fiber | Electrospinning | Rat, full-thickness | 93% vs. 100% (t=14d) | (Amiri et al., 2020) |
| ECM-related protein Olfactomedinlike | Fiber | Electrospinning | Mouse, full thickness | 70% vs. 75% (t=6d) | (Dunn et al., 2016) |
| Silk fibroin | Fiber | Electrospinning | Rat, full thickness | 10% vs. 20%(t=7d) | (Ju et al., 2016) |
| Chitosan and poly(ethylene oxide) with vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor | Fiber | Electrospinning | Rat, full thickness | 0% vs. 30% (t=7d) | (Xie et al., 2013) |
| Gelatin methacryloyl with fatty acids/aspirin, encapsulated poly(dopamine) | Hydrogel | Electrospinning | Mouse, full thickness | 45% vs. 80% (t=7d) | (K. Zhang et al., 2021) |
| Gelatin methacryloyl | Fiber | Electrospinning | Mouse, full thickness | 60% vs. 80% (t=14d) | (Zhao, Sun, et al., 2017) |
| Dopamine methacrylamide and sodium tetraborate decahydrate with silver nanoparticles | Hydrogel | Injection | Rat, full thickness | 23% vs. 50% (t=10d) | (GhavamiNejad et al., 2016) |
| Gelatin-grafted-dopamine and poly(dopamine)-coated carbon nanotubes | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 60% vs. 80% (t=7d) | (Liang, Zhao, Hu, Han, et al., 2019) |
| Catechol modified methacryloyl chitosan | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 60% vs. 85% (t=7d) | (L. Wang et al., 2020) |
| Cross-linked poly(glycerol sebacate)-co-poly(ethylene glycol)-g-catechol and ureido-pyrimidinone modified gelatin | Hydrogel | Injection | Rat, full thickness | 95% vs. 100% (t=10d) | (Zhao et al., 2020) |
| Dopamine-grafted oxidized sodium alginate and poly(acrylamide) | Hydrogel | Prefabricated | Rat, full-thickness | 10% vs. 20% (t=5d) | (T. Chen et al., 2018) |
| Poly(dopamine) nanoparticles with poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) and loaded endothelial growth factor | Hydrogel | Prefabricated | Rat, full thickness | 50% vs. 65% (t=9d) | (Han et al., 2016) |
| Poly(N-isopropyl acrylamide) and alginate with silver nanoparticles | Hydrogel | Prefabricated | Mouse, full-thickness | 40% vs. 60% (t=7d) | (Blacklow et al., 2019) |
| Benzaldehyde-terminated poly(ethylene glycol) and dodecyl-modified chitosan with vascular endothelial growth factor | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full-thickness | 60% vs. 80% (t=7d) | (G. Chen et al., 2018) |
| Methacrylamide dopamine and 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate with chitosan | Hydrogel | Injection | Rabbit, full thickness | 20% vs. 50% (t=7d) | (Gan et al., 2019) |
| Multi-armed poly(ethylene glycol)-vinyl sulfone with RGD peptide and FXIIIa coagulant | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 20% vs. 40% (t=7d) | (Griffin et al., 2015) |
| N-carboxyethyl chitosan and benzaldehyde-terminated Pluronic F127/carbon nanotubes | Hydrogel | Injection | Injection | 70% vs. 85%(t=7d) | (J. He et al., 2020) |
| Quaternized chitosan-tannic acid-ferric iron | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 40% vs. 70% (t=7d) | (Guo et al., 2022) |
| Functionalized quaternized chitosan-gelatin methacrylate-graphene oxide | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 60% vs. 75% (t=7d) | (Liang et al., 2020) |
| j-carrageenan polysaccharide loaded with nanosilicates | Hydrogel | Injection | In vitro scratch assay | 30% vs. 90% (t=36h) | (Lokhande et al., 2018) |
| Sodium alginate/graphene oxide/poly(vinyl alcohol) | Hydrogel | Prefabricated | Mice, full-thickness | 65% vs. 70% (t=10d) | (Ma et al., 2019) |
| Quaternized chitosan and benzaldehyde-terminated Pluronic®F127 | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 80% vs. 90% (t=10d) | (Qu et al., 2018) |
| Sodium alginate-chitosan-poly(acrylamide) | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 60% vs. 60% (t=7d) | (Tang et al., 2020) |
| Collagen-hyaluronic acid | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 70% vs. 85% (t=7d) | (Ying et al., 2019) |
| Quaternized chitosan-g-polyaniline and benzaldehyde functionalized poly(ethylene glycol)-co-poly(glycerol sebacate) | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 80% vs. 85% (t=10d) | (Zhao, Wu, et al., 2017) |
| Dual-crosslinked chitosan via trans-cyclooctene/tetrazine and four arm poly(ethylene glycol) | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 62% vs. 85% (t=7d) | (S. Li et al., 2020) |
| Aminoethyl methacrylate hyaluronic acid and methacrylated methoxy poly(ethylene glycol), chlorhexidine diacetate-loaded nanogels | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 35% vs. 70% (t=7d) | (Zhu et al., 2018) |
| Carboxymethyl chitosan and dialdehyde-modified cellulose nanocrystal | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, partial thickness | 30% vs. 80% (t=7d) | (W. Huang et al., 2018) |
| Hyaluronic acid-graft-dopamine and reduced graphene oxide | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 40% vs. 80% (t=7d) | (Liang, Zhao, Hu, Chen, et al., 2019) |
| Silver/zinc oxide loaded chitosan | Hydrogel | Prefabricated | Mouse, partial thickness | 40% vs. 100% (t=7d) | (Lu et al., 2017) |
| Poly(ε-caprolactone-co-lactide)-b-poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly(ε-caprolactone-co-lactide) with gelatin | Hydrogel | Injection | Mouse, full thickness | 40% vs. 90% (t=7d) | (Turabee et al., 2019) |