Table 2.

Pros and cons of the modified electrospinning techniques.

Technique	Pros	Cons	References
Combination of nanofibers and microfibers	Controllable fiber diameter and pore size.	Small pores defined by the nanofibers in the scaffold still hinder cell infiltration.	[19], [20], [21]
Electrospinning with salt leaching	Controllable pore size.	Modifications of electrospinning setup need to disperse the salt particles into nanofibrous mats.	[22], [23]
Cryogenic electrospinning	Open 3D structure with super large pores.	Correct balance between crystal formation and fiber deposition is difficult to be achieved. Difficult to form a thick scaffold with homogeneous porous structure.	[24], [25], [26], [27]
Sacrificial fibers to induce large pores	Adjustable porosity. Homogeneous porous structure.	Difficult to increase scaffold pore size.	[28], [29], [30]
Electrospinning using a liquid bath collector	Dispersion effect of the liquid bath results in homogeneous pores with the scaffolds.	Difficult to scale up.	[31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]
Ultrasonication	Feasible process.	Difficult to obtain desirable shape of scaffold.	[42], [43], [44], [45]
Electrospinning with gas foaming	Homogeneous porous structure.	Chemical agent has a negative effect on electrospinning process.	[47], [48], [49], [50]
Electrospinning/electrospraying	Minimize the loss of bioactivity by separating natural component from highly volatile organic solution. Allow rapid formation of hybrid tissue engineered constructs with uniform cell distribution.	Difficult to scale up.	[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]