Review systematically evaluates microfluidic applications for wound repair, highlighting personalized therapeutic strategies.
Microfluidic technology enables precise micro-scale manipulation of fluids and has emerged as an effective strategy for the preparation of functional materials for wound repair. However, existing reviews have mainly summarized microfluidic wound-repair systems according to fabrication methods or device categories, leaving insufficient integration between final therapeutic material forms, wound-specific biological functions, validation levels, and stratified therapeutic applications. To address this gap, this review aims to systematically review the latest advances in this field by classifying microfluidic applications according to the final form of the therapeutic material, including particulate systems (in which microspheres are, where appropriate, regarded as a subtype of spherical particles), fibrous materials, scaffolds, microneedles, emulsions, and hydrogel dressings. Following a brief overview of the key biological processes involved in wound healing, this article reviews how microfluidic platforms can modulate the structure, composition, and release behavior of materials, and how these design features support clinically significant functions such as local drug delivery, immune modulation, promotion of angiogenesis, and tissue integration. In response to this review's focus on “personalized therapeutic applications,” we will further explore strategies for stratifying wounds or patients based on exudate monitoring, disease-specific wound models, and adaptive local drug delivery systems. We also provide a critical assessment of the current challenges—including scalability, standardization, biomarker validation, long-term safety, and clinical translation. Overall, this review adopts a material-morphology-oriented, function-driven framework aimed at elucidating the therapeutic potential of microfluidic strategies in the field of wound repair, as well as the limitations of the available evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: