Volumetric muscle loss is defined as composite loss of muscle mass. Severe injuries result in permanent functional impairment. Treatment options are limited. Tissue engineering techniques utilizing scaffolds offer promise as a potential therapy.
Recent Advances:
Emerging strategies, including bioactive molecules and growth factors in biocompatible scaffolds, may promote muscle regeneration following severe injury. In this context, scaffolds can act as a drug-delivery device, provide guidance to cells as a supporting matrix, and slowly release growth factors to promote healing.
Critical Issues:
Scaffolds engraftment and ability to promote tissue regeneration in injured beds remain limited. Tuning and optimizing scaffold fiber diameter, alignment, cellular cues, growth factor delivery, and porosity will be important in reconstituting functional skeletal muscle following loss.
Future Directions:
Our mechanistic understanding of interactions between biomimetic scaffolds and host tissue is still evolving, and future research can identify factors to promote tissue regeneration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RelaixF, BenczeM, BorokMJ, et al.Perspectives on skeletal muscle stem cells. Nat Commun, 2021; 12(1):692; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20760-6
2.
AlarcinE, Bal-OzturkA, AvciH, et al.Current strategies for the regeneration of skeletal muscle tissue. Int J Mol Sci, 2021; 22(11); doi: 10.3390/ijms22115929
3.
CoronaBT, WenkeJC, WardCL. Pathophysiology of volumetric muscle loss injury. Cells Tissues Organs, 2016; 202(3–4):180–188; doi: 10.1159/000443925
4.
EndoY, NourmahnadA, SinhaI. Optimizing skeletal muscle anabolic response to resistance training in aging. Front Physiol, 2020; 11:874; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00874
5.
EugenisI, WuD, RandoTA. Cells, scaffolds, and bioactive factors: Engineering strategies for improving regeneration following volumetric muscle loss. Biomaterials, 2021; 278:121173; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121173
6.
CarnesME, PinsGD. Skeletal muscle tissue engineering: biomaterials-based strategies for the treatment of volumetric muscle loss. Bioengineering (Basel), 2020; 7(3); doi: 10.3390/bioengineering7030085
7.
GreisingSM, WarrenGL, SouthernWM, et al.Early rehabilitation for volumetric muscle loss injury augments endogenous regenerative aspects of muscle strength and oxidative capacity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2018; 19(1):173; doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2095-6
8.
SamandariM, QuintJ, Rodriguez-delaRosaA, et al.Bioinks and bioprinting strategies for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Adv Mater, 2022; 34(12):e2105883; doi: 10.1002/adma.202105883
9.
LynchGS, FaryCJ, WilliamsDA. Quantitative measurement of resting skeletal muscle [Ca2+]i following acute and long-term downhill running exercise in mice. Cell Calcium, 1997; 22(5):373–383; doi: 10.1016/s0143-4160(97)90022-1
10.
SaclierM, CuvellierS, MagnanM, et al.Monocyte/macrophage interactions with myogenic precursor cells during skeletal muscle regeneration. Febs J, 2013; 280(17):4118–4130; doi: 10.1111/febs.12166
11.
OrimoS, HiyamutaE, ArahataK, et al.Analysis of inflammatory cells and complement C3 in bupivacaine-induced myonecrosis. Muscle Nerve, 1991; 14(6):515–520; doi: 10.1002/mus.880140605
12.
TatsumiR, LiuX, PulidoA, et al.Satellite cell activation in stretched skeletal muscle and the role of nitric oxide and hepatocyte growth factor. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, 2006; 290(6):C1487–C1494; doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00513.2005
13.
EndoY, BaldinoK, LiB, et al.Loss of ARNT in skeletal muscle limits muscle regeneration in aging. Faseb J, 2020; 34(12):16086–16104; doi: 10.1096/fj.202000761RR
14.
WangX, ZhaoW, RansohoffRM, et al.Infiltrating macrophages are broadly activated at the early stage to support acute skeletal muscle injury repair. J Neuroimmunol, 2018; 317:55–66; doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2018.01.004
15.
OstrovidovS, SalehiS, CostantiniM, et al.3D bioprinting in skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Small, 2019; 15(24):e1805530; doi: 10.1002/smll.201805530
16.
SicariBM, DearthCL, BadylakSF. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine approaches to enhance the functional response to skeletal muscle injury. Anat Rec (Hoboken), 2014; 297(1):51–64; doi: 10.1002/ar.22794
KozanNG, JoshiM, SichererST, et al.Porous biomaterial scaffolds for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2023; 11:1245897; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1245897
20.
KiratitanapornW, BerryDB, MudlaA, et al.3D printing a biocompatible elastomer for modeling muscle regeneration after volumetric muscle loss. Biomater Adv, 2022; 142:213171; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.213171
21.
ThangaduraiM, AjithA, BudharajuH, et al.Advances in electrospinning and 3D bioprinting strategies to enhance functional regeneration of skeletal muscle tissue. Biomater Adv, 2022; 142:213135; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.213135
22.
LaumonierT, MenetreyJ. Muscle injuries and strategies for improving their repair. J Exp Orthop, 2016; 3(1):15; doi: 10.1186/s40634-016-0051-7
23.
OgnevaIV, LebedevDV, ShenkmanBS. Transversal stiffness and Young’s modulus of single fibers from rat soleus muscle probed by atomic force microscopy. Biophys J, 2010; 98(3):418–424; doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.10.028
24.
EnglerAJ, GriffinMA, SenS, et al.Myotubes differentiate optimally on substrates with tissue-like stiffness: Pathological implications for soft or stiff microenvironments. J Cell Biol, 2004; 166(6):877–887; doi: 10.1083/jcb.200405004
PageRL, MalcuitC, VilnerL, et al.Restoration of skeletal muscle defects with adult human cells delivered on fibrin microthreads. Tissue Eng Part A, 2011; 17(21–22):2629–2640; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2011.0024
27.
GrasmanJM, DoDM, PageRL, et al.Rapid release of growth factors regenerates force output in volumetric muscle loss injuries. Biomaterials, 2015; 72:49–60; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.047
Gilbert-HonickJ, IyerSR, SomersSM, et al.Engineering functional and histological regeneration of vascularized skeletal muscle. Biomaterials, 2018; 164:70–79; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.02.006
30.
McClureMJ, CohenDJ, RameyAN, et al.Decellularized muscle supports new muscle fibers and improves function following volumetric injury. Tissue Eng Part A, 2018; 24(15–16):1228–1241; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0386
31.
LeeH, JuYM, KimI, et al.A novel decellularized skeletal muscle-derived ECM scaffolding system for in situ muscle regeneration. Methods, 2020; 171:77–85; doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2019.06.027
32.
TurnerNJ, YatesAJJr, WeberDJ, et al.Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for regeneration of a functioning musculotendinous junction. Tissue Eng Part A, 2010; 16(11):3309–3317; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2010.0169
33.
CoronaBT, WardCL, BakerHB, et al.Implantation of in vitro tissue engineered muscle repair constructs and bladder acellular matrices partially restore in vivo skeletal muscle function in a rat model of volumetric muscle loss injury. Tissue Eng Part A, 2014; 20(3–4):705–715; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2012.0761
34.
KimJ, KasukonisB, RobertsK, et al.Graft alignment impacts the regenerative response of skeletal muscle after volumetric muscle loss in a rat model. Acta Biomater, 2020; 105:191–202; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.01.024
35.
SicariBM, RubinJP, DearthCL, et al.An acellular biologic scaffold promotes skeletal muscle formation in mice and humans with volumetric muscle loss. Sci Transl Med, 2014; 6(234):234ra58; doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008085
36.
MaJ, HoldenK, ZhuJ, et al.The application of three-dimensional collagen-scaffolds seeded with myoblasts to repair skeletal muscle defects. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2011; 2011:812135; doi: 10.1155/2011/812135
37.
KroehneV, HeschelI, SchügnerF, et al.Use of a novel collagen matrix with oriented pore structure for muscle cell differentiation in cell culture and in grafts. J Cell Mol Med, 2008; 12(5a):1640–1648; doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00238.x
38.
BrouwerKM, DaamenWF, van LochemN, et al.Construction and in vivo evaluation of a dual layered collagenous scaffold with a radial pore structure for repair of the diaphragm. Acta Biomater, 2013; 9(6):6844–6851; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.03.003
39.
BasurtoIM, BoudreauRD, BandaraGC, et al.Freeze-dried porous collagen scaffolds for the repair of volumetric muscle loss injuries. bioRxiv, 2024; doi: 10.1101/2024.08.30.610194
40.
RussellCS, MostafaviA, QuintJP, et al.In situ printing of adhesive hydrogel scaffolds for the treatment of skeletal muscle injuries. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 2020; 3(3):1568–1579; doi: 10.1021/acsabm.9b01176
41.
HwangboH, LeeH, JinEJ, et al.Bio-printing of aligned GelMa-based cell-laden structure for muscle tissue regeneration. Bioact Mater, 2022; 8:57–70; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.06.031
42.
HuT, ShiM, ZhaoX, et al.Biomimetic 3D aligned conductive tubular cryogel scaffolds with mechanical anisotropy for 3D cell alignment, differentiation and in vivo skeletal muscle regeneration. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2022; 428:131017; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.131017
43.
HaasGJ, DunnAJ, MarcinczykM, et al.Biomimetic sponges for regeneration of skeletal muscle following trauma. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2019; 107(1):92–103; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36535
44.
EndoY, SamandariM, KarvarM, et al.Aerobic exercise and scaffolds with hierarchical porosity synergistically promote functional recovery post volumetric muscle loss. Biomaterials, 2023; 296:122058; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122058
45.
ZiemkiewiczN, HilliardGM, DunnAJ, et al.Laminin-111-enriched fibrin hydrogels enhance functional muscle regeneration following trauma. Tissue Eng Part A, 2022; 28(7–8):297–311; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2021.0096
46.
LiT, HouJ, WangL, et al.Bioprinted anisotropic scaffolds with fast stress relaxation bioink for engineering 3D skeletal muscle and repairing volumetric muscle loss. Acta Biomater, 2023; 156:21–36; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.08.037
47.
BorselliC, CezarCA, ShvartsmanD, et al.The role of multifunctional delivery scaffold in the ability of cultured myoblasts to promote muscle regeneration. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(34):8905–8914; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.019
48.
PatelKH, TalovicM, DunnAJ, et al.Aligned nanofibers of decellularized muscle extracellular matrix for volumetric muscle loss. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2020; 108(6):2528–2537; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34584
BandyopadhyayB, ShahV, SoramM, et al.In vitro and in vivo evaluation of (L)-lactide/epsilon-caprolactone copolymer scaffold to support myoblast growth and differentiation. Biotechnol Prog, 2013; 29(1):197–205; doi: 10.1002/btpr.1665
51.
KamelgerFS, MarksteinerR, MargreiterE, et al.A comparative study of three different biomaterials in the engineering of skeletal muscle using a rat animal model. Biomaterials, 2004; 25(9):1649–1655; doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00520-9
52.
NarayananN, JiangC, WangC, et al.Harnessing fiber diameter-dependent effects of myoblasts toward biomimetic scaffold-based skeletal muscle regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:203; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00203
53.
San EmeterioCL, HymelLA, TurnerTC, et al.Nanofiber-based delivery of bioactive lipids promotes pro-regenerative inflammation and enhances muscle fiber growth after volumetric muscle loss. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2021; 9:650289; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.650289
54.
HymelLA, OgleME, AndersonSE, et al.Modulating local S1P receptor signaling as a regenerative immunotherapy after volumetric muscle loss injury. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2021; 109(5):695–712; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.37053
55.
HanWM, MohiuddinM, AndersonSE, et al.Co-delivery of Wnt7a and muscle stem cells using synthetic bioadhesive hydrogel enhances murine muscle regeneration and cell migration during engraftment. Acta Biomater, 2019; 94:243–252; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.025
56.
WangY, KankalaRK, CaiYY, et al.Minimally invasive co-injection of modular micro-muscular and micro-vascular tissues improves in situ skeletal muscle regeneration. Biomaterials, 2021; 277:121072; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121072
57.
QaziTH, MooneyDJ, PumbergerM, et al.Biomaterials based strategies for skeletal muscle tissue engineering: Existing technologies and future trends. Biomaterials, 2015; 53:502–521; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.110
58.
BeierJP, KlumppD, RudisileM, et al.Collagen matrices from sponge to nano: New perspectives for tissue engineering of skeletal muscle. BMC Biotechnol, 2009; 9:34; doi: 10.1186/1472-6750-9-34
59.
Mezu-NdubuisiOJ, MaheshwariA. The role of integrins in inflammation and angiogenesis. Pediatr Res, 2021; 89(7):1619–1626; doi: 10.1038/s41390-020-01177-9
60.
SechlerJL, CorbettSA, SchwarzbauerJE. Modulatory roles for integrin activation and the synergy site of fibronectin during matrix assembly. Mol Biol Cell, 1997; 8(12):2563–2573; doi: 10.1091/mbc.8.12.2563
61.
ZioberBL, ChenY, KramerRH. The laminin-binding activity of the alpha 7 integrin receptor is defined by developmentally regulated splicing in the extracellular domain. Mol Biol Cell, 1997; 8(9):1723–1734; doi: 10.1091/mbc.8.9.1723
62.
DhavalikarP, RobinsonA, LanZ, et al.Review of integrin-targeting biomaterials in tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater, 2020; 9(23):e2000795; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202000795
63.
George-WeinsteinM, FosterRF, GerhartJV, et al.In vitro and in vivo expression α7 integrin and Desmin define the primary and secondary myogenic lineages. Dev Biol, 1993; 156(1):209–229; doi: 10.1006/dbio.1993.1071
64.
RuoslahtiE. RGD and other recognition sequences for integrins. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol, 1996; 12:697–715; doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.12.1.697
65.
McClureMJ, ClarkNM, HyzySL, et al.Role of integrin α7β1 signaling in myoblast differentiation on aligned polydioxanone scaffolds. Acta Biomater, 2016; 39:44–54; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.04.046
66.
MitraSK, SchlaepferDD. Integrin-regulated FAK-Src signaling in normal and cancer cells. Curr Opin Cell Biol, 2006; 18(5):516–523; doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2006.08.011
67.
GaoH, XiaoJ, WeiY, et al.Regulation of myogenic differentiation by topologically microgrooved surfaces for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. ACS Omega, 2021; 6(32):20931–20940; doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c02347
68.
LukjanenkoL, JungMJ, HegdeN, et al.Loss of fibronectin from the aged stem cell niche affects the regenerative capacity of skeletal muscle in mice. Nat Med, 2016; 22(8):897–905; doi: 10.1038/nm.4126
69.
KarimiF, O’ConnorAJ, QiaoGG, et al.Integrin clustering matters: a review of biomaterials functionalized with multivalent integrin-binding ligands to improve cell adhesion, migration, differentiation, angiogenesis, and biomedical device integration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2018; 7(12):e1701324; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201701324
70.
GerliMFM, GuyetteJP, Evangelista-LeiteD, et al.Perfusion decellularization of a human limb: A novel platform for composite tissue engineering and reconstructive surgery. PLoS One, 2018; 13(1):e0191497; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191497
71.
BulowA, SchaferB, BeierJP. Three-dimensional bioprinting in soft tissue engineering for plastic and reconstructive surgery. Bioengineering (Basel), 2023; 10(10); doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10101232
72.
CholokD, LeeE, LisieckiJ, et al.Traumatic muscle fibrosis: From pathway to prevention. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2017; 82(1):174–184; doi: 10.1097/ta.0000000000001290
73.
HoganKJ, SmoakMM, KoonsGL, et al.Bioinspired electrospun decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds promote muscle regeneration in a rat skeletal muscle defect model. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2022; 110(5):1090–1100; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.37355
74.
SmoakMM, HoganKJ, Grande-AllenKJ, et al.Bioinspired electrospun dECM scaffolds guide cell growth and control the formation of myotubes. Sci Adv, 2021; 7(20); doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abg4123
75.
IbrahimA. 3D bioprinting bone. In: 3D Bioprinting for Reconstructive Surgery. (ThomasDJ, JessopZM, WhitakerIS. eds.) Woodhead Publishing; 2018, pp. 245–275.
76.
YaoQ, ZhengYW, LanQH, et al.Recent development and biomedical applications of decellularized extracellular matrix biomaterials. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 104:109942; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109942
77.
ChaturvediV, NaskarD, KinnearBF, et al.Silk fibroin scaffolds with muscle-like elasticity support in vitro differentiation of human skeletal muscle cells. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2017; 11(11):3178–3192; doi: 10.1002/term.2227
78.
NugeT, LiuZ, LiuX, et al.Recent advances in scaffolding from natural-based polymers for volumetric muscle injury. Molecules, 2021; 26(3); doi: 10.3390/molecules26030699
79.
MarcinczykM, ElmashhadyH, TalovicM, et al.Laminin-111 enriched fibrin hydrogels for skeletal muscle regeneration. Biomaterials, 2017; 141:233–242; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.07.003
80.
FarshidfarN, IravaniS, VarmaRS. Alginate-based biomaterials in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Mar Drugs, 2023; 21(3); doi: 10.3390/md21030189
81.
YiH, ForsytheS, HeY, et al.Tissue-specific extracellular matrix promotes myogenic differentiation of human muscle progenitor cells on gelatin and heparin conjugated alginate hydrogels. Acta Biomater, 2017; 62:222–233; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.022
82.
JanaS, CooperA, ZhangM. Chitosan scaffolds with unidirectional microtubular pores for large skeletal myotube generation. Adv Healthc Mater, 2013; 2(4):557–561; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201200177
83.
Rodriguez-VazquezM, Vega-RuizB, Ramos-ZunigaR, et al.Chitosan and its potential use as a scaffold for tissue engineering in regenerative medicine. Biomed Res Int, 2015; 2015:821279; doi: 10.1155/2015/821279
84.
Tonda-TuroC, RuiniF, RamellaM, et al.Non-covalently crosslinked chitosan nanofibrous mats prepared by electrospinning as substrates for soft tissue regeneration. Carbohydr Polym, 2017; 162:82–92; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.01.050
85.
BushkalovaR, FarnoM, TenailleauC, et al.Alginate-chitosan PEC scaffolds: A useful tool for soft tissues cell therapy. Int J Pharm, 2019; 571:118692; doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.118692
86.
ShimIK, SuhWH, LeeSY, et al.Chitosan nano-/microfibrous double-layered membrane with rolled-up three-dimensional structures for chondrocyte cultivation. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2009; 90(2):595–602; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32109
87.
RonchiG, FornasariBE, CrosioA, et al.Chitosan tubes enriched with fresh skeletal muscle fibers for primary nerve repair. Biomed Res Int, 2018; 2018:9175248; doi: 10.1155/2018/9175248
88.
PollotBE, RathboneCR, WenkeJC, GudaT. Natural polymeric hydrogel evaluation for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2018; 106(2):672–679; doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33859
89.
PacilioS, CostaR, PapaV, et al.Electrospun Poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) scaffold potentiates C2C12 myoblast bioactivity and acts as a stimulus for cell commitment in skeletal muscle myogenesis. Bioengineering, 2023; 10(2):239.
90.
Perez-PuyanaV, VillanuevaP, Jimenez-RosadoM, et al.Incorporation of elastin to improve polycaprolactone-based scaffolds for skeletal muscle via electrospinning. Polymers (Basel), 2021; 13(9); doi: 10.3390/polym13091501
91.
GasparottoM, BelletP, ScapinG, et al.3D printed graphene-PLA scaffolds promote cell alignment and differentiation. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(3); doi: 10.3390/ijms23031736
92.
ZhangJ, XieB, XiZ, et al.A comparable study of polyglycolic acid’s degradation on macrophages’ activation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2020; 109:110574; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110574
93.
ZhuJ. Bioactive modification of poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels for tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2010; 31(17):4639–4656; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.02.044
94.
ZiemkiewiczN, TalovicM, MadsenJ, et al.Laminin-111 functionalized polyethylene glycol hydrogels support myogenic activity in vitro. Biomed Mater, 2018; 13(6):e065007; doi: 10.1088/1748-605X/aad915
95.
ElkhouryK, MorsinkM, Sanchez-GonzalezL, et al.Biofabrication of natural hydrogels for cardiac, neural, and bone tissue engineering applications. Bioact Mater, 2021; 6(11):3904–3923; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.03.040
96.
GarrisonCM, Singh-VarmaA, PastinoAK, et al.A multilayered scaffold for regeneration of smooth muscle and connective tissue layers. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2021; 109(5):733–744; doi:10.1002/jbm.a.37058
97.
EichholzKF, HoeyDA. Mediating human stem cell behaviour via defined fibrous architectures by melt electrospinning writing. Acta Biomater, 2018; 75:140–151; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.05.048
98.
PlaceES, GeorgeJH, WilliamsCK, et al.Synthetic polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. Chem Soc Rev, 2009; 38(4):1139–1151; doi: 10.1039/b811392k
99.
JenkinsTL, LittleD. Synthetic scaffolds for musculoskeletal tissue engineering: Cellular responses to fiber parameters. NPJ Regen Med, 2019; 4(1):15; doi: 10.1038/s41536-019-0076-5
