Search

The individual approaches of regenerative medicine efforts alone and rehabilitation efforts alone have not yet fully restored function after severe spinal cord injury (SCI). Regenerative rehabilitation may be leveraged to promote regeneration of the spinal cord tissue, and promote reorganization of the regenerated neural pathways and intact spinal circuits for better functional recovery for SCI. Conductive biomaterials may be a linchpin that empowers the synergy between regenerative medicine and rehabilitation approaches, as electrical stimulation applied to the spinal cord could facilitate neural reorganization. In this review, we discuss current regenerative medicine approaches in clinical trials and the rehabilitation, or neuromodulation, approaches for SCI, along with their respective translational limitations. Furthermore, we review the translational potential, in a surgical context, of conductive biomaterials (e.g., conductive polymers, carbon-based materials, metallic nanoparticle-based materials) as they pertain to SCI. While pre-formed scaffolds may be difficult to translate to human contusion SCIs, injectable composites that contain blended conductive components and can form within the injury may be more translational. However, given that there are currently no in vivo SCI studies that evaluated conductive materials combined with rehabilitation approaches, we discuss several limitations of conductive biomaterials, including demonstrating safety and efficacy, that will need to be addressed in the future for conductive biomaterials to become SCI therapeutics. Even so, the use of conductive biomaterials creates a synergistic opportunity to merge the fields of regenerative medicine and rehabilitation and redefine what regenerative rehabilitation means for the spinal cord. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: For spinal cord injury (SCI), the individual approaches of regenerative medicine and rehabilitation are insufficient to fully restore functional recovery; however, the goal of regenerative rehabilitation is to combine these two disparate fields to maximize the functional outcomes. Concepts similar to regenerative rehabilitation for SCI have been discussed in several reviews, but for the first time, this review considers how conductive biomaterials may synergize the two approaches. We cover current regenerative medicine and rehabilitation approaches for SCI, and the translational advantages and disadvantages, in a surgical context, of conductive biomaterials used in biomedical applications that may be additionally applied to SCI. Furthermore, we identify the current limitations and translational challenges for conductive biomaterials before they may become therapeutics for SCI., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Bioprinting technologies have tremendous potential for advancing regenerative medicine due to the precise spatial control over depositing a printable biomaterial, or bioink. Despite the growing interest in bioprinting, the field is challenged with developing biomaterials for extrusion-based bioprinting. The paradigm of contemporary bioink studies relies on trial-and-error methods for discovering printable biomaterials, which has little practical use for others who endeavor to develop bioinks. There is pressing need to follow the precedent set by a few pioneering studies that have attempted to standardize bioink characterizations for determining the properties that define printability. Here, we developed a pentenoate-functionalized hyaluronic acid hydrogel (PHA) into a printable bioink and used three recommended, quantitative rheological assessments to characterize the printability: 1) yield stress, 2) viscosity, and 3) storage modulus recovery. The most important characteristic is the yield stress; we found a yield stress upper limit of ∼1000 Pa for PHA. Measuring the viscosity was advantageous for determining shear-thinning behavior, which aided in extruding highly viscous PHA through a nozzle. Post-printing recovery is required to maintain shape fidelity and we found storage modulus recoveries above ∼85% were sufficient for PHA. Two formulations had superior printability (i.e., 1.5 MDa PHA - 4 wt%, and 1 MDa PHA - 8 wt%), and increasing cell concentrations in PHA up to 9 × 10 6  cells/mL had minimal effects on the printability. Even so, other factors such as sterilization and peptide modifications to enhance bioactivity may influence printability, highlighting the need for investigators to consider such factors when developing new bioinks. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Bioprinting has potential for regenerating damaged tissues; however, there are a limited number of printable biomaterials, and developing new bioinks is challenging because the required material physical properties for extrusion-based printing are not yet known. Most new bioinks are developed by trial-and-error, which is neither efficient nor comparable across materials. There is a need for the field to begin utilizing standard methods proposed by a few pioneering studies to characterize new bioinks. Therefore, we have developed the printability of a hyaluronic acid based-hydrogel and characterized the material with three quantitative rheological tests. The current work impacts the bioprinting field by demonstrating and encouraging the use of universal bioink characterizations and by providing printability windows to advance new bioink development., (Copyright © 2019 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)