Bio-boosting transplants: a systematic review on biopolymers in vascular composite allotransplantation

Background: Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) joins skin, muscle, bone, nerve, and vessels into a single graft that is both highly immunogenic and mechanically complex. Biopolymers, natural or synthetic, can provide structural scaffolding, localized drug release, and immune modulation. Although widely explored in solid-organ transplantation, their utility in VCA is poorly defined. We therefore conducted a systematic review to consolidate current evidence and map translational priorities.

Methods: Adhering to PRISMA 2020 and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251039845), we searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar through April 2025. Original studies evaluating biopolymers in any VCA-relevant setting (in vitro, animal, or clinical) were eligible. Clinical quality was judged with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and pre-clinical studies with the SYRCLE tool. Given methodological heterogeneity, findings were narratively synthesized.

Results: Eleven studies published between 2014 and 2024 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Collectively, they demonstrate that biopolymers, ranging from decellularized limb and auricular scaffolds to collagen-hydroxyapatite or polycaprolactone bone substitutes, hyaluronic-acid–functionalized vascular grafts, chitosan- or alginate-based drug-eluting coatings, and extracellular-matrix (ECM) sheets delivering cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4-immunoglobulin (CTLA4-Ig) with or without rapamycin, consistently enhance vascularization, support multi-tissue regeneration, and preserve mechanical integrity across diverse VCA models. Immunologically, polymer platforms bias host responses toward tolerance: in a murine hind-limb model, ECM combined with CTLA4-Ig and rapamycin extended graft survival to 72 days while promoting pro-regenerative macrophage polarization. Drug-delivery applications also proved effective; calcium-alginate coatings prolonged vancomycin release for up to 50 days in vitro, highlighting the potential for infection control during graft integration. Notwithstanding these benefits, chitosan scaffolds displayed inadequate load-bearing capacity, and heterogeneity in species, graft types, follow-up intervals, and outcome metrics limited direct comparison and impeded meta-analysis.

Conclusion: Biopolymers emerge as potential adaptable platforms that merge mechanical support with finely tuned immune regulation in VCA. Successful translation will depend on tissue-specific material optimization, standardized immunological endpoints, and multicenter studies that replicate clinical complexity. Drawing on lessons from solid-organ transplantation and fostering collaboration among immunologists, biomaterial scientists, and surgeons will be pivotal to moving these technologies from bench to bedside in VCA.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Graphical Abstract.

1 Introduction

In vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA), the integration and long-term viability of complex, multi-tissue grafts is impacted by a range of immunological, functional, and regenerative challenges (1–5). While surgical advancements and immunosuppressive protocols have improved graft survival, issues related to tissue regeneration, biomimicry, and host-graft interface healing continue to limit broader clinical adoption and long-term success (1, 3, 4, 6).

Biopolymers, naturally-derived or bioengineered polymeric materials, have emerged as promising adjuncts in VCA, offering diverse applications across immunomodulation, tissue scaffolding, wound healing, and drug delivery (7, 8). Their tunable physicochemical properties, biodegradability, and potential for bioactive modification position them as ideal candidates to support composite tissue integration and functional recovery. In particular, the use of biopolymers as immunosuppressive carriers, nerve conduits, vascular scaffolds, and dermal substitutes has shown encouraging results in preclinical models and select clinical applications (9–14).

Furthermore, insights from solid organ transplantation (SOT), where biopolymers have successfully been used for targeted immunosuppression and bioscaffold support in heart, liver, kidney, pancreas and small intestine transplantation, may help inform and accelerate their application in the more complex, multi-tissue context of VCA (15, 16). Despite this promise, the role of biopolymers in VCA remains fragmented across a heterogeneous body of literature, with limited clinical translation and few standardized approaches (17). Key challenges include the optimization of polymer composition for specific tissue types, ensuring biocompatibility with allograft components, and integrating controlled-release systems within complex vascularized constructs. Furthermore, regulatory barriers and variability in transplant protocols have hindered the systematic evaluation of biopolymer-based interventions (18–20).

Given these considerations, a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence is needed to evaluate the roles, mechanisms, and therapeutic potential of biopolymers in VCA. Therefore, this systematic review aims to consolidate existing research, assess reported outcomes, and highlight opportunities for translational innovation, ultimately informing future clinical strategies and bioengineered solutions in composite tissue transplantation. To ensure a comprehensive overview, this includes not only the direct application of biopolymers but also the assessment of emerging approaches such as ex vivo modifications, in vitro and in vivo bio-boosting of allotransplants, and deep structural modifications of grafts, including decellularization and recellularization techniques designed to enhance graft integration, immune compatibility, and long-term function.

2 Methods

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Due to the anticipated variability in study methodologies and reported outcomes, a narrative synthesis was employed in place of a meta-analysis. The review protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD420251039845).

Systematic Search

A systematic literature search was carried out across PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (first 25 pages) for all studies published up to April 20^th, 2025. The search strategy centered on two main conceptual domains, combined with the Boolean operator “AND”: (i) “vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA)” and (ii) “biopolymers.” Within each domain, relevant synonyms and MeSH terms were utilized to maximize search sensitivity and comprehensiveness. The full search strings for each database are presented in Supplementary Digital Content 1. Additionally, the reference lists of all included articles were reviewed to capture any further eligible studies.

Studies were included if they explored the use, mechanism, or therapeutic impact of biopolymers in the context of VCA, employing clinical data, preclinical animal models, or in vitro systems relevant to composite tissue transplantation. All original, peer-reviewed article types—regardless of study design—were considered, provided they were published in English and available as full-text articles. Exclusion criteria comprised non-peer-reviewed literature, articles lacking original data (such as reviews or editorials), or studies evaluating biopolymers outside the scope of VCA or its relevant composite tissue elements.

Title and abstract screening were independently conducted by three reviewers (T.N., T.S., V.M.), followed by full-text assessment for eligibility. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion with a senior reviewer (L.K.). The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flowchart highlighting the full study selection process.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality of included studies was appraised using validated tools based on study design. Clinical studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), which evaluates methodological rigor across three domains: (i) selection of study groups, (ii) comparability of cohorts, and (iii) ascertainment of outcomes. A maximum of nine stars indicates the highest quality. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of studies included were calculated and reported in the results section (21). For preclinical animal studies, the SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool was employed to evaluate internal validity across key domains such as selection, performance, detection, and reporting bias (22).

In addition, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (LOE) framework was applied to stratify the strength of evidence (23). Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were classified as Level I, while observational studies and preclinical data were ranked according to their design and translational applicability. Detailed results of the quality assessments are provided in Supplementary Digital Content 2–4.

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed through a blinded dual-review process to ensure accuracy and minimize bias. From each included study, the following parameters were systematically collected: Digital Object Identifier (24), study title, first author, year of publication, study type, sample size, recipient age and sex, donor age and sex, duration of follow-up, underlying cause of transplantation, type of VCA, study intervention, objective of intervention, biomaterial used, animal model (if applicable), comparison group (if applicable), and overall study outcome.

3 Results

The systematic search initially identified n=1,356 studies. Following application of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of n=11 (0.8%) studies met eligibility for final inclusion. Year of publication ranged from 2014 to 2024. The mean (SD) NOS-score was 7.4 (1.5), indicating moderate methodological rigor. The LOE ranged from Foundational Evidence to Level 1b.

Study designs encompassed randomized clinical trials, prospective clinical investigations, as well as preclinical in vivo and in vitro experimental models, reflecting a multidisciplinary exploration of biopolymer applications in VCA-related fields. Animal models included Wistar rats, Sprague Dawley rats, baboons, and sheep. Transplant types ranged from bone and soft tissue grafts to composite limbs and vascular grafts. Full insights on study designs and cohorts are shown in Table 1. A clear definition and classification of biopolymers in this context are provided in Table 2.

Table 1

Table 1. Study designs and study cohorts of included articles.

Table 2

Table 2. Biopolymer categories, definitions, subtypes, example materials, and applications in vascularized composite allotransplantation.

3.1 Direct VCA Applications: Biopolymer Scaffolds for Composite Tissue Engineering

Jank et al. employed perfusion-decellularization and recellularization of rat and primate forearms, preserving extracellular matrix (ECM) architecture and enabling repopulation with myoblasts, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells, ultimately producing contractile, muscle-like constructs. This work established a foundational framework for patient-specific, immunosuppression-free VCA graft engineering (25). Similarly, Duisit et al. applied perfusion-decellularization to human auricular grafts, achieving a 97% reduction in DNA while retaining ECM organization and vascular microarchitecture. When implanted in Wistar rats, these acellular scaffolds demonstrated good biocompatibility and minimal immune response, supporting their relevance for facial composite reconstruction (26). Collectively, these studies highlight the versatility of decellularized biopolymer scaffolds for limb and facial VCA, demonstrating preserved architecture, biocompatibility, and the potential for immunologically favorable graft preparation. However, studies did not provide sufficient safety analysis, resulting in a limited translational readiness.

3.2 Bone regeneration evidence: Biopolymer-enhanced osseous grafts

Multiple studies evaluated biopolymer-augmented bone substitutes relevant to VCA scenarios involving maxillofacial or craniofacial reconstruction. Clark et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing four ridge preservation techniques and found that advanced platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), alone or combined with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA), significantly minimized ridge height loss and promoted vital bone formation, up to 46% compared to 29% with FDBA alone, highlighting its regenerative potential (27). Abellán et al. found that both deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and FDBA provided comparable outcomes in molar ridge preservation, with similar vital bone formation and dimensional stability. Thicker buccal bone plates reduced remodeling, and most cases required only minor sinus lifts, highlighting both grafts as flexible, effective options relevant for bone reconstruction in VCA (28). Gallo et al. extended this line of research to vertical ridge augmentation, showing that both bovine xenografts, covered by a nonabsorbable high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane, and FDBA, when combined with autogenous bone chips, supported high mineralized tissue formation and complete implant survival (29). Preclinical work by Knudsen et al. reinforced these trends, revealing that natural hydroxyapatite (nHA) and collagen-hydroxyapatite (COL/HA) composites were as effective as traditional allografts in promoting bone regeneration and implant fixation in a distal femoral condyle bone graft sheep model. In contrast, chitosan-hydroxyapatite (CS/HA) composites showed poor osteoconductivity and mechanical performance, suggesting that while chitosan holds promise, its use as a load-bearing scaffold may require further optimization (30). La Monaca et al. conducted a comparative histomorphometric analysis of six bone graft materials used in maxillary sinus augmentation and found that FDBA achieved the highest percentage of new bone formation (32%), with no adverse events or implant failures, confirming its strong biocompatibility and efficacy for vertical bone regeneration (31).

In contrast, Naidu et al. evaluated the use of PRF in combination with demineralized FDBA (DFDBA) for periodontal regeneration and observed no significant improvement over DFDBA alone, highlighting that while FDBA consistently supports bone formation, pairing it with certain adjuncts like PRF may not yield synergistic effects (32).

3.3 Vascular engineering: Polymer-based grafts supporting vascular integration

For VCA graft survival, early and stable vascularization is essential. Kudryavtseva et al. engineered small-diameter vascular grafts from electrospun polycaprolactone (PCL), enhanced via magnetron plasma treatment and hyaluronic acid (HA) functionalization. This dual modification produced a hydrophilic outer surface that promoted robust cell adhesion and a hydrophobic inner surface that maintained mechanical stability. The study utilized human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (CD19^-CD34^-CD45^-CD73⁺CD90⁺CD105⁺ MSCs), which adhered efficiently to the HA-coated surface and exhibited improved morphology, intercellular connectivity, and syncytial formation, which are key for endothelialization. The authors highlighted that these properties are particularly relevant for VCA, where long-term graft survival hinges on rapid and stable vascular integration. The dual-modified PCL grafts thus offer a promising, bioactive scaffold platform to support stem cell-mediated vascular repair in complex composite tissue transplants, key requirements for successful VCA graft perfusion (33). Overall, these results position engineered PCL-based vascular scaffolds as potential future candidate adjuncts for restoring or enhancing microvascular networks in complex composite tissue transplants, if safety concerns are met.

3.4 Immune and drug-delivery modulation: Biopolymers as immunoregulatory platforms

Several studies investigated the immunomodulatory potential of biopolymer systems in transplantation contexts relevant to VCA. Hornyák et al., investigated chitosan and calcium alginate coatings on composite grafts for localized antibiotic delivery. While chitosan coatings did not significantly prolong drug release, calcium alginate coatings extended vancomycin release up to 50 days, underscoring chitosan’s limitations in structural applications but supporting its use in antimicrobial delivery during graft integration (34). Sommerfeld et al. demonstrated that local application of a decellularized porcine urinary bladder matrix (MatriStem), in combination with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4-immunoglobulin (CTLA4-Ig) and rapamycin, significantly prolonged graft survival in a murine hindlimb VCA model, extending median survival time to 72.5 days and promoting a pro-regenerative immune environment (11).

3.5 Summary and Safety

Organizing the available evidence across composite graft scaffolds, bone regeneration, vascular engineering, and immune/drug delivery systems highlights the wide-ranging applications of biopolymers in VCA. These materials demonstrate adaptability across tissues, relevance for functional integration, and promise for future translational pathways. However, consistent reporting on safety considerations, such as degradation byproducts, foreign-body responses, and long-term biocompatibility, remains limited across studies, raising concerns about unrecognized failure modes and potential selection bias toward positive outcomes. Full data are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of biopolymer-enhanced constructs in VCA-targeted research.

4 Discussion

Biopolymers have emerged as promising preclinical adjuncts in VCA due to their biocompatibility, tunable degradation profiles, and potential for bioactive functionalization (Figure 2). In this field, where multi-tissue integration and long-term graft viability remain critical challenges, biopolymers offer unique opportunities to enhance outcomes through scaffold support, localized drug delivery, and immunomodulation. Their role spans across structural regeneration, infection prevention, and vascular or neural guidance within complex graft environments. Conversely, in tissue engineering, a major challenge lies in the effective recellularization of the scaffold, which can occur in vitro under controlled laboratory conditions or in vivo where the human body functions as a natural bioreactor (35). As research advances, biopolymers may serve as key enablers of next-generation, bioengineered solutions that improve both functional recovery and immunologic tolerance in VCA, which, to date, was only achieved in vivo through mixed chimerism (7, 8, 36–42).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Year of publication progression supporting an increasing trend of relevancy for the application of biopolymers in VCA surgery.

In our study, biopolymers have shown significant versatility in VCA, supporting tissue-specific scaffold development for limb, facial, and vascular grafts through techniques like decellularization and surface modification. While materials such as COL/HA, PCL, and calcium alginate demonstrated strong regenerative or structural properties, others like chitosan faced limitations in load-bearing applications, though remained effective in drug delivery (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Multifaceted potential applications for biopolymers in VCA surgery. This schematic illustrates the diverse functional roles of biopolymers in VCA, as identified through a systematic review of clinical and preclinical studies. Central biopolymer platforms include scaffolds, hydrogels, and nanoparticles. Surrounding panels highlight key application areas: (1) scaffold-based graft engineering for multi-tissue regeneration; (2) nerve conduits supporting axonal guidance; (3) vascular grafts promoting endothelial adhesion; (4) localized immunosuppressive delivery systems (e.g., CTLA4-Ig, rapamycin); (5) antimicrobial coatings for infection control; (6) composite scaffold systems tailored to multiple tissue types; (7) facial and auricular reconstruction using decellularized ECM; and (8) bone regeneration adjuncts (e.g., COL/HA, nHA). Together, these strategies underscore the potential of biopolymers to enhance immune modulation, integration, and repair in complex transplant environments.

Current research increasingly highlighted the versatility of biopolymers in modulating immune responses, promoting graft integration, and supporting structural regeneration in transplant surgery (43, 44). Their tunable biodegradability, mechanical properties, and ability to carry bioactive molecules are further advantages (45, 46). In literature, the application of biopolymers in VCA ranges from localized drug delivery systems to structural scaffolds designed to promote cellular adhesion, angiogenesis, or tissue remodeling (47, 48). In this context, biopolymers were evaluated for their efficacy in drug delivery and regenerative capacity in specific tissues (49). Natural and synthetic polymers were incorporated into nerve conduits, vascular scaffolds, dermal replacements, and bone grafts. Literature supported their use in enhancing revascularization, modulating inflammatory responses at the host-graft interface, and creating composite scaffolds that mimicked the structural and biochemical features of native tissues (50, 51). However, biopolymer application faces various challenges. The structural demands of each tissue type meant that a single biopolymer system was rarely suitable across the entire graft (52). Furthermore, skin components oftentimes elicited particularly strong immune responses, making tolerance induction difficult (4, 53–55). Bone regeneration required load-bearing strength, while neural repair called for guidance conduits with bioactive cues, necessitating tailored, often multi-layered or composite polymer systems. The integration of these systems into a single, unified construct that could function in vivo remained a significant engineering challenge (56–59). Another issue was the relative scarcity of translational studies. While preclinical models showed encouraging results, clinical implementation lagged due to regulatory constraints, manufacturing scalability, and the need for long-term outcome data (60–63). This gap is particularly problematic because most preclinical studies observe grafts for only weeks to months, whereas VCA recipients require immunosuppression and graft surveillance over decades, creating a disconnect between experimental timelines and real-world clinical needs. In our review, follow-up periods were similarly short, highlighting the challenge of extrapolating short-term biomaterial performance to the lifelong immunosuppression demands faced by VCA patients These challenges are further amplified by the limited number of performed VCA transplants globally, which may have constrained the ability to perform large-scale clinical studies. Additionally, ethical considerations regarding the risk-benefit profile of VCA transplants complicated the evaluation of experimental adjuncts such as biopolymer systems (18, 53, 64). Moreover, biopolymers derived from natural sources often suffer from inherent batch-to-batch variability and structural complexity, making mass production for commercial clinical applications technically and economically challenging, posing a significant hurdle for widespread application (65, 66). Here, triglycerol monostearate (TGM) gels and other injectable hydrogel platforms loaded with tacrolimus emerged as potential alternatives and have shown promise as minimally invasive drug delivery systems due to their thermoresponsive properties, ability to form depots in situ, and responsiveness to inflammation-associated enzymatic triggers that enable on-demand drug release. However, challenges such as limited mechanical integrity, potential burst release, and the absence of intrinsic regenerative or structural functions restrict their standalone utility in the multi-tissue environment of VCA (7, 67, 68).

In solid organ transplantation, biopolymers were mainly investigated for targeted immunosuppressive delivery, using microspheres, hydrogels, and nanoparticles to reduce systemic toxicity while enhancing graft-specific tolerance (47). They were also explored for cell encapsulation and early biosensing applications aimed at protecting donor tissue and monitoring graft health (69–72). However, persistent challenges, including incomplete local immunosuppression and the inability to prevent chronic, silent rejection, limited their clinical translation (73–78).

Nevertheless, research continues to explore more sophisticated biopolymer solutions, including stimuli-responsive systems, multi-functional coatings, and bioresorbable materials capable of temporally staged degradation. These innovations promised to enable the fine-tuned orchestration of immune modulation, structural support, and regenerative signaling, all key to advancing outcomes in both SOT and VCA (79–81). While the maturity of biopolymer applications in SOT was more advanced, the multifaceted demands of VCA offered a unique proving ground for next-generation biomaterial technologies.

For patients, biopolymer-enhanced grafts may offer future solutions that promote healing in hand, face, or limb transplants by supporting the regeneration of bone, nerve, and blood vessels while potentially reducing the need for lifelong systemic immunosuppression. For physicians, these platforms provide new potential tools for customizing graft design, ranging from load-bearing bone substitutes to localized drug delivery systems using agents. Although most studies remain in preclinical stages, early findings highlight the translational promise of biopolymers in improving functional outcomes, reducing complications, and expanding therapeutic options in VCA. Lastly, to further contextualize the future translational trajectory of biopolymer technologies in VCA, it is important to define what level of evidence would justify progression toward human application. At present, the available data remain insufficient to support early-phase clinical VCA trials, even at a Phase 0 exploratory or microdosing level, primarily due to short follow-up periods, limited safety reporting, and the absence of robust large-animal efficacy data. Meaningful translation will require well-designed, long-term studies in relevant large-animal VCA models that evaluate degradation behavior, immunologic safety, and functional integration under clinically realistic immunosuppression regimens. From a regulatory perspective, many biopolymer-based VCA adjuncts may be classified as combination products, integrating device, drug, or biologic components, which introduces additional requirements for manufacturing consistency, sterility validation, and dual-pathway oversight through FDA’s CDRH and CBER branches. Only once biopolymers demonstrate reproducible safety, predictable pharmacokinetics, and structural performance in validated large-animal models could regulatory agencies consider first-in-human exploratory use in VCA. As such, translation readiness remains preliminary and contingent upon both scientific and regulatory milestones yet to be achieved.

5 Limitations

This systematic review was subject to several limitations that may affect the generalizability of its findings. First, the overall number of studies specifically addressing biopolymer use in VCA remains low, reflecting the nascent and exploratory stage of this field. Many of the included investigations were preclinical in nature, limiting the ability to extrapolate outcomes to human clinical settings. Additionally, heterogeneity in study design, graft type, animal models, and outcome measures hindered direct comparisons and precluded a quantitative meta-analysis. The diversity of polymer types, processing techniques, and application modes further introduced variability that may mask the relative effectiveness of specific biomaterials. Moreover, due to the scarcity of dedicated data, the boundary between biopolymer applications in established VCA, potential translation to VCA, or broader reconstructive contexts often remains blurred, complicating standard classification and comparative assessment. Importantly, reliable reporting on safety considerations, such as degradation products, foreign body responses, and long-term biocompatibility, was largely absent across studies, preventing a rigorous analysis of failure modes and raising the possibility of inadvertent positive-outcome bias, which in turn limits the translational readiness of the current evidence. Publication bias is also a concern, as studies demonstrating negative or inconclusive outcomes may be underrepresented in the literature. Lastly, regulatory, ethical, and logistical barriers specific to VCA constrain the availability of high-quality, large-scale clinical data, underscoring the need for standardized reporting frameworks and multicenter collaboration in future research.

6 Conclusion

Biopolymers hold substantial preclinical promise as multifunctional tools in vascularized composite allotransplantation, enabling progress in tissue-specific regeneration, immune modulation, and localized drug delivery. Across the preclinical studies reviewed, both natural and synthetic polymers demonstrated a capacity to enhance vascularization, reduce inflammation, and support structural integration within composite grafts. However, their successful clinical translation remains challenged by material-specific limitations, manufacturing complexity, and the need for tailored approaches based on tissue-specific demands. Insights from SOT, where biopolymers have shown value in controlling immunosuppression, could help inform the next generation of biomaterial strategies in VCA. Going forward, interdisciplinary collaboration among immunologists, biomaterial scientists, pharmacologists, and transplant surgeons is critical to optimizing these technologies. Continued efforts in translational research and standardized evaluation will be essential to unlock the full potential of biopolymers and integrate them into future clinical protocols for reconstructive transplantation.

Author contributions

LK: Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization, Validation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. TN: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Visualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis. TS: Writing – original draft, Software, Data curation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Formal Analysis. JF: Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. VM: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Visualization, Formal Analysis, Validation, Data curation. SK: Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Visualization. MH: Validation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Supervision. AP: Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. GH: Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. AL: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Acknowledgments

All figures included in this manuscript were created using BioRender.com, a web-based illustration platform specifically designed for generating high-quality scientific diagrams. We gratefully acknowledge the use of this tool.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1645261/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Knoedler L, Hoch CC, Knoedler S, Klimitz FJ, Schaschinger T, Niederegger T, et al. Objectifying aesthetic outcomes following face transplantation - the AI research metrics model (CAARISMA ^® ARMM). J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. (2025) 126:102277. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102277

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Knoedler L, Hoch CC, Schaschinger T, Niederegger T, Knoedler S, Festbaum C, et al. Objective and automated facial palsy grading and outcome assessment after facial palsy reanimation surgery - A prospective observational study. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. (2024) 102211.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

3. Knoedler L, Kauke-Navarro M, Knoedler S, Niederegger T, Hofmann E, Heiland M, et al. Oral health and rehabilitation in face transplant recipients - a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. (2025) 29:47. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06078-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Knoedler L, Knoedler S, Panayi AC, Lee CAA, Sadigh S, Huelsboemer L, et al. Cellular activation pathways and interaction networks in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1179355. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1179355

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Knoedler L, Knoedler S, Allam O, Remy K, Miragall M, Safi AF, et al. Application possibilities of artificial intelligence in facial vascularized composite allotransplantation-a narrative review. Front Surg. (2023) 10:1266399. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1266399

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Knoedler L, Schaschinger T, Niederegger T, Hundeshagen G, Panayi AC, Cetrulo CL, et al. Multi-center outcome analysis of 16 face transplantations – A retrospective OPTN study. Transplant Int. (2025) 38. doi: 10.3389/ti.2025.14107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Lellouch AG, Taveau CB, Andrews AR, Molde J, Ng ZY, Tratnig-Frankl P, et al. Local FK506 implants in non-human primates to prevent early acute rejection in vascularized composite allografts. Ann Transl Med. (2021) 9:1070. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-313

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Bulutoglu B, Acun A, Deng SL, Mert S, Lupon E, Lellouch AG, et al. Combinatorial use of therapeutic ELP-based micelle particles in tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater. (2022) 11:e2102795. doi: 10.1002/adhm.202102795

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Nicholls D, Rostami S, Karoubi G, and Haykal S. Perfusion decellularization for vascularized composite allotransplantation. SAGE Open Med. (2022) 10. doi: 10.1177/20503121221123893

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Adil A, Xu M, and Haykal S. Recellularization of bioengineered scaffolds for vascular composite allotransplantation. Front Surg. (2022) 9. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.843677

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Sommerfeld SD, Zhou X, Mejías JC, Oh BC, Maestas DR Jr., Furtmüller GJ, et al. Biomaterials-based immunomodulation enhances survival of murine vascularized composite allografts. Biomater Sci. (2023) 11:4022–31. doi: 10.1039/D2BM01845D

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Silva R, Mehl P, and Wilson O. Gum arabic-chitosan composite biopolymer scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. (2010), 171–4.

Google Scholar

13. Wang X, Bai Z, Li K, Dong J, Zhang H, Liu X, et al. Bioinspired PLCL/elastin nanofibrous vascular tissue engineering scaffold enhances endothelial cells and inhibits smooth muscle cells. Biomacromolecules. (2023). doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.3c00175

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Bandiera A, Catanzano O, Bertoncin P, Bergonzi C, Bettini R, and Elviri L. 3D-printed scaffold composites for the stimuli-induced local delivery of bioactive adjuncts. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. (2022) 69:1793–804. doi: 10.1002/bab.2245

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Orlando G, Baptista P, Birchall M, De Coppi P, Farney A, Guimaraes-Souza NK, et al. Regenerative medicine as applied to solid organ transplantation: current status and future challenges. Transpl Int. (2011) 24:223–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2010.01182.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Knoedler L, Schroeter A, Iske J, Dean J, Boroumand S, Schaschinger T, et al. Cellular senescence—from solid organs to vascularized composite allotransplants. GeroScience. (2025), 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11357-025-01788-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Lupon E, Acun A, Taveau CB, Oganesyan R, Lancia HH, Andrews AR, et al. Optimized decellularization of a porcine fasciocutaneaous flap. Bioeng (Basel). (2024) 11. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11040321

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Haug V, Panayi AC, Knoedler S, Foroutanjazi S, Kauke-Navarro M, Fischer S, et al. Implications of vascularized composite allotransplantation in plastic surgery on legal medicine. J Clin Med. (2023) 12. doi: 10.3390/jcm12062308

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Iske J, Nian Y, Maenosono R, Maurer M, Sauer I, and Tullius S. Composite tissue allotransplantation: opportunities and challenges. Cell Mol Immunol. (2019) 16:343–9. doi: 10.1038/s41423-019-0215-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Morelon E, Kanitakis J, Petruzzo P, Badet L, and Thaunat O. Immunological challenges in vascularised composite allotransplantation. Curr Transplant Rep. (2015) 2:276–83. doi: 10.1007/s40472-015-0073-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Wells GA, Wells G, Shea B, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, et al eds. The newcastle-ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses (2014).

Google Scholar

22. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RBM, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, and Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2014) 14:43. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, and Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2011) 128:305–10. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. (2021) 47:1181–247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Jank BJ, Xiong L, Moser PT, Guyette JP, Ren X, Cetrulo CL, et al. Engineered composite tissue as a bioartificial limb graft. Biomaterials. (2015) 61:246–56.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

26. Duisit J, Amiel H, Wüthrich T, Taddeo A, Dedriche A, Destoop V, et al. Perfusion-decellularization of human ear grafts enables ECM-based scaffolds for auricular vascularized composite tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. (2018) 73:339–54. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.04.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Clark D, Rajendran Y, Paydar S, Ho S, Cox D, Ryder M, et al. Advanced platelet-rich fibrin and freeze-dried bone allograft for ridge preservation: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol. (2018) 89:379–87. doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0466

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Abellán D, Barallat L, Vilarrasa J, Cabezas M, Pascual La Rocca A, Valles C, et al. Ridge preservation in molar sites comparing xenograft versus mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. (2022) 33:511–23.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

29. Gallo P, Díaz-Báez D, Perdomo S, Aloise AC, Tattan M, Saleh MHA, et al. Comparative analysis of two biomaterials mixed with autogenous bone graft for vertical ridge augmentation: A histomorphometric study in humans. Clin Implant Dentistry Related Res. (2022) 24:709–19. doi: 10.1111/cid.13124

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Knudsen EE, Dreyer CH, Overgaard S, Zhang Y, and Ding M. Long-term natural hydroxyapatite and synthetic collagen hydroxyapatite enhance bone regeneration and implant fixation similar to allograft in a sheep model of implant integration. Calcif Tissue Int. (2025) 116:19. doi: 10.1007/s00223-024-01309-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. La Monaca G, Iezzi G, Cristalli MP, Pranno N, Sfasciotti GL, and Vozza I. Comparative histological and histomorphometric results of six biomaterials used in two-stage maxillary sinus augmentation model after 6-month healing. BioMed Res Int. (2018) 2018:9430989. doi: 10.1155/2018/9430989

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Naidu NSS, Kancharla AK, Nandigam AR, Tasneem SM, Gummaluri SS, Dey S, et al. Comparative study of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and its combination with platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of intrabony defects: A randomized clinical trial. Dent Med Probl. (2024) 61:507–13. doi: 10.17219/dmp/166229

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Kudryavtseva V, Stankevich K, Kozelskaya A, Kibler E, Zhukov Y, Malashicheva A, et al. Magnetron plasma mediated immobilization of hyaluronic acid for the development of functional double-sided biodegradable vascular graft. Appl Surface Sci. (2020) 529:147196. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.147196

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Hornyák I, Madácsi E, Kalugyer P, Vácz G, Horváthy DB, Szendrői M, et al. Increased release time of antibiotics from bone allografts through a novel biodegradable coating. BioMed Res Int. (2014) 2014:459867. doi: 10.1155/2014/459867

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Dean J, Niederegger T, Hoch CC, Maheta B, Wollenberg B, Mrosk F, et al. Extracellular vesicles in head and neck cancer: mediators of oncogenesis, immune evasion, and therapy resistance. Front Immunol. (2025) 16. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1642639

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Londono R, Gorantla VS, and Badylak SF. Emerging implications for extracellular matrix-based technologies in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Stem Cells Int. (2016) 2016:1541823. doi: 10.1155/2016/1541823

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Ren D, Chen J, Yu M, Yi C, Hu X, Deng J, et al. Emerging strategies for tissue engineering in vascularized composite allotransplantation: A review. J Tissue Eng. (2024) 15. doi: 10.1177/20417314241254508

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Anggelia M, Cheng H-Y, Lai P, Hsieh Y, Lin C-H, and Lin C-H. Cell therapy in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Biomed J. (2022) 45:454–64. doi: 10.1016/j.bj.2022.01.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Kim Y, Zharkinbekov Z, Raziyeva K, Tabyldiyeva L, Berikova K, Zhumagul D, et al. Chitosan-based biomaterials for tissue regeneration. Pharmaceutics. (2023) 15. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15030807

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Nicholls DL, Rostami S, Karoubi G, and Haykal S. Perfusion decellularization for vascularized composite allotransplantation. SAGE Open Med. (2022) 10:20503121221123893. doi: 10.1177/20503121221123893

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Lellouch AG, Andrews AR, Saviane G, Ng ZY, Schol IM, Goutard M, et al. Tolerance of a vascularized composite allograft achieved in MHC class-I-mismatch swine via mixed chimerism. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:829406. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.829406

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Henderson D, Knoedler L, Niederegger T, Fenske J, Mathieu O, Hundeshagen G, et al. What are the functional outcomes of total laryngeal transplantation? A systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies. Front Immunol. (2025) 16. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1631525

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Lee J-H, Shin S-J, Lee JH, Knowles JC, Lee H-H, and Kim H-W. Adaptive immunity of materials: Implications for tissue healing and regeneration. Bioact Mater. (2024) 41:499–522. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.07.027

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Anggelia MR, Huang R-W, Cheng H-Y, Lin C-H, and Lin C-H. Implantable immunosuppressant delivery to prevent rejection in transplantation. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23:1592. doi: 10.3390/ijms23031592

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Song R, Murphy M, Li C, Ting K, Soo C, and Zheng Z. Current development of biodegradable polymeric materials for biomedical applications. Drug Des Devel Ther. (2018) 12:3117–45. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S165440

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Iovene A, Zhao Y, Wang S, and Amoako K. Bioactive polymeric materials for the advancement of regenerative medicine. J Funct Biomater. (2021) 12. doi: 10.3390/jfb12010014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Abbaszadeh S, Nosrati-Siahmazgi V, Musaie K, Rezaei S, Qahremani M, Xiao B, et al. Emerging strategies to bypass transplant rejection via biomaterial-assisted immunoengineering: Insights from islets and beyond. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. (2023) 200:115050. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2023.115050

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Romagnoli C, D’Asta F, and Brandi ML. Drug delivery using composite scaffolds in the context of bone tissue engineering. Clin cases Miner Bone Metab. (2013) 10:155–61.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

49. Phutane P, Telange D, Agrawal S, Gunde M, Kotkar K, and Pethe A. Biofunctionalization and applications of polymeric nanofibers in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Polymers (Basel). (2023) 15. doi: 10.3390/polym15051202

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Ye B, Wu B, Su Y, Sun T, and Guo X. Recent advances in the application of natural and synthetic polymer-based scaffolds in musculoskeletal regeneration. Polymers. (2022) 14:4566. doi: 10.3390/polym14214566

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Abalymov A, Parakhonskiy B, and Skirtach AG. Polymer- and hybrid-based biomaterials for interstitial, connective, vascular, nerve, visceral and musculoskeletal tissue engineering. Polymers. (2020) 12:620. doi: 10.3390/polym12030620

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Sarker MD, Naghieh S, Sharma NK, Ning L, and Chen X. Bioprinting of vascularized tissue scaffolds: influence of biopolymer, cells, growth factors, and gene delivery. J Healthc Eng. (2019) 2019:9156921. doi: 10.1155/2019/9156921

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Alhefzi M, Aycart MA, Bueno EM, Kiwanuka H, Krezdorn N, Pomahac B, et al. Treatment of rejection in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Curr Transplant Rep. (2016) 3:404–9. doi: 10.1007/s40472-016-0128-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Moris D and Cendales LC. Sensitization and desensitization in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:682180. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.682180

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Sun JA, Adil A, Biniazan F, and Haykal S. Immunogenicity and tolerance induction in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Front Transplant. (2024) 3:1350546. doi: 10.3389/frtra.2024.1350546

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Lyons JG, Plantz MA, Hsu WK, Hsu EL, and Minardi S. Nanostructured biomaterials for bone regeneration. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. (2020) 8. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00922

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Seifi S, Shamloo A, Barzoki AK, Bakhtiari MA, Zare S, Cheraghi F, et al. Engineering biomimetic scaffolds for bone regeneration: Chitosan/alginate/polyvinyl alcohol-based double-network hydrogels with carbon nanomaterials. Carbohydr Polymers. (2024) 339:122232. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122232

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Itai S, Suzuki K, Kurashina Y, Kimura H, Amemiya T, Sato K, et al. Cell-encapsulated chitosan-collagen hydrogel hybrid nerve guidance conduit for peripheral nerve regeneration. Biomed Microdev. (2020) 22:81. doi: 10.1007/s10544-020-00536-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Huang L, Zhu L, Shi X, Xia B, Liu Z, Zhu S, et al. A compound scaffold with uniform longitudinally oriented guidance cues and a porous sheath promotes peripheral nerve regeneration in vivo. Acta Biomateri. (2018) 68:223–36. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.12.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Ali JM, Catarino P, Dunning J, Giele H, Vrakas G, and Parmar J. Could sentinel skin transplants have some utility in solid organ transplantation? Transplant Proc. (2016) 48:2565–70.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

61. Blades CM, Greyson MA, Dumanian ZP, Yu JW, Wang Y, Li B, et al. Development of a porcine VCA model using an external iliac vessel-based vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap. J Reconstr Microsurg. (2024). doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1788812

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Leonard DA, Kurtz JM, Mallard C, Albritton A, Duran-Struuck R, Farkash EA, et al. Vascularized composite allograft tolerance across MHC barriers in a large animal model. Am J Transplant. (2014) 14:343–55. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12560

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Matar A, Crepeau R, Mundinger G, Cetrulo C, and Torabi R. Large animal models of vascularized composite allotransplantation: A review of immune strategies to improve allograft outcomes. Front Immunol. (2021) 12. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664577

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Weissenbacher A, Hautz T, Pratschke J, and Schneeberger S. Vascularized composite allografts and solid organ transplants: similarities and differences. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. (2013) 18:640–4. doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000019

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Segneanu A-E, Bejenaru LE, Bejenaru C, Blendea A, Mogoşanu GD, Biţă A, et al. Advancements in hydrogels: A comprehensive review of natural and synthetic innovations for biomedical applications. Polymers. (2025) 17:2026. doi: 10.3390/polym17152026

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Singaravelu S, Abrahamse H, and Kumar SSD. Three-dimensional bio-derived materials for biomedical applications: challenges and opportunities. RSC Adv. (2025) 15:9375–97. doi: 10.1039/D4RA07531E

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Dzhonova DV, Olariu R, Leckenby J, Banz Y, Prost J-C, Dhayani A, et al. Local injections of tacrolimus-loaded hydrogel reduce systemic immunosuppression-related toxicity in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Transplantation. (2018) 102:1684–94.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

68. Knoedler L, Klimitz FJ, Huelsboemer L, Niederegger T, Schaschinger T, Knoedler S, et al. Experimental swine models for vascularized composite allotransplantation and immunosuppression: A systematic review and case report of a novel heterotopic hemifacial swine model. Transplant Int. (2025) 38:14520. doi: 10.3389/ti.2025.14520

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Li R, Liang J, He Y, Qin J, He H, Lee S, et al. Sustained release of immunosuppressant by nanoparticle-anchoring hydrogel scaffold improved the survival of transplanted stem cells and tissue regeneration. Theranostics. (2018) 8:878–93.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

70. Wu Q, Liu D, Zhang X, Wang D, DongYe M, Chen W, et al. Development and effects of tacrolimus-loaded nanoparticles on the inhibition of corneal allograft rejection. Drug Deliv. (2019) 26:290–9. doi: 10.1080/10717544.2019.1582728

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Lin H-C, Anggelia MR, Cheng C-C, Ku K-L, Cheng H-Y, Wen C-J, et al. A mixed thermosensitive hydrogel system for sustained delivery of tacrolimus for immunosuppressive therapy. Pharmaceutics. (2019) 11:413.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

72. Maldonado RA, LaMothe RA, Ferrari JD, Zhang AH, Rossi RJ, Kolte PN, et al. Polymeric synthetic nanoparticles for the induction of antigen-specific immunological tolerance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2015) 112:E156–65. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408686111

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Ho BX, Teo AKK, and Ng NHJ. Innovations in bio-engineering and cell-based approaches to address immunological challenges in islet transplantation. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1375177. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1375177

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. No DY, Jeong GS, and Lee S-H. Immune-protected xenogeneic bioartificial livers with liver-specific microarchitecture and hydrogel-encapsulated cells. Biomaterials. (2014) 35:8983–91.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

75. Park J, Lin HY, Assaker JP, Jeong S, Huang CH, Kurdi T, et al. Integrated kidney exosome analysis for the detection of kidney transplant rejection. ACS Nano. (2017) 11:11041–6. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.7b05083

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Wu J, Shaidani S, Theodossiou SK, Hartzell EJ, and Kaplan DL. Localized, on-demand, sustained drug delivery from biopolymer-based materials. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. (2022) 19:1317–35. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2022.2110582

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Shi M and McHugh KJ. Strategies for overcoming protein and peptide instability in biodegradable drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. (2023) 199:114904. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2023.114904

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Stevanović M and Filipović N. A review of recent developments in biopolymer nano-based drug delivery systems with antioxidative properties: insights into the last five years. Pharmaceutics. (2024) 16:670. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics16050670

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Neumann M, di Marco G, Iudin D, Viola M, van Nostrum CF, van Ravensteijn BGP, et al. Stimuli-responsive hydrogels: the dynamic smart biomaterials of tomorrow. Macromolecules. (2023) 56:8377–92. doi: 10.1021/acs.macromol.3c00967

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Xiao R, Zhou G, Wen Y, Ye J, Li X, and Wang X. Recent advances on stimuli-responsive biopolymer-based nanocomposites for drug delivery. Composites Part B: Engineer. (2023) 266:111018. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.111018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Saska S, Pilatti L, Blay A, and Shibli JA. Bioresorbable polymers: advanced materials and 4D printing for tissue engineering. Polymers. (2021) 13:563. doi: 10.3390/polym13040563

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar