This article selects 6 original studies published from 2010—2024, covering work by teams from the United States, South Korea, and China, and presents a narrative review. The content has been independently summarized by TONGLI based on publicly available papers, clearly distinguishing between in vitro, animal, and clinical case data, and does not evaluate commercial products.
01What problems must dura mater repair patches address?
Dura mater repair materials must address an interface involving coverage, barrier function, and tissue reconstruction simultaneously. The material must adapt to the specific defect morphology encountered in intracranial or spinal surgery while maintaining sufficient integrity in a fluid environment. For R&D teams, determining whether the patch will be applied or sutured, which tissue side it will contact, and how long it should remain in place before selecting a polymer is more targeted than choosing a polymer first.1,3,6
| R&D Challenges | Fiber structures that can be discussed | Corresponding Evaluations |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage and Handling | Composite Membranes or Reinforcing Layers with Supportive Functions | Wet-State Tensile Strength, Tear Resistance, Suture Retention, and Adhesion |
| Tissue Ingrowth and Reconstruction | Aligned Fibers and Composites with Natural Components | Cell Migration, Collagen Formation, and Post-Implantation Tissue Response |
| Cranial Interface Management | Dense Layers, Surface Modifications, or Layered Structures | Fluid Barriers, Tissue Adhesion, and Interface Integrity |
| Additional Localized Functions | Drug-Loading Fibers or Functional Layers | Release, Biological Effects, and Coordination with the Repair Process |
These functions must be comprehensively evaluated on the same repair patch. Promoting dura mater cell migration and reducing undesirable adhesions on the cranial side focus on tissue responses at different locations; allowing cells to enter a membrane does not imply that it already provides a reliable cerebrospinal fluid barrier. The value of electrospinning lies in providing adjustable structural variables, whereas overall performance remains jointly determined by the composite material and its application method.1,4,5,6
02From Single-Fiber Membranes to Composites of Natural Components and Synthetic Scaffolds
Material approaches reported in the literature include biodegradable polyesters such as PCL, PLLA, PLGA, and PLCL, as well as components such as collagen, gelatin, and chitosan. Synthetic polymers can provide fiber-forming and structural support capabilities, whereas natural components are used to modify the cell-contact interface. Combining the two is not limited to solution blending; fibers can also be produced separately and co-deposited, or a fibrous scaffold can be prepared first followed by surface treatment.2,3,4,6
In Park et al. (2018), a co-spinning method with independently controllable nozzles was used to combine collagen fibers with PLGA fibers. The paper compared morphology, mechanical properties, L929 cell responses, and performance in rat implantation: PLGA improved the mechanical shortcomings of the collagen fiber scaffold, whereas incorporation of collagen altered wetting and cell-contact behavior. The study also involved a rat craniotomy injury model, but these results should be understood as animal evidence for a specific material.3
After material compounding, fiber-forming conditions, preservation of natural components, and water absorption behavior may also change. Therefore, sample comparisons should retain pure components, composite components, and identically post-treated controls to identify whether improvements arise from the fiber scaffold, surface changes, or processing steps. This approach is particularly applicable to membranes combining collagen or gelatin with polyesters, avoiding judgment of overall suitability based solely on a single post-composite cellular metric.2,3
03How Aligned Fibers Participate in Cell Migration and Tissue Arrangement
In Xie et al. (2010), a collector comprising a central-point electrode and an outer-ring electrode was used to prepare radially aligned PCL nanofibers. Compared with randomly oriented fibers, radially aligned fibers guided dura mater fibroblasts to migrate from the periphery toward the center in vitro and influenced the arrangement of type I collagen. The study linked fiber orientation to the geometric requirements of defect closure rather than merely comparing fiber diameters.1
This result supports using collection methods as a design tool but cannot be directly translated into improved clinical defect-healing rates. In vitro migration does not yet account for fluid pressure, suture loads, or responses at different tissue interfaces. For repair patches with irregular shapes, orientation uniformity can first be assessed at the target dimensions before observing cell migration along the intended pathways.1
Random, uniaxially aligned, and radial layers provide distinct structural characteristics. In R&D, they can be treated as independent variables to compare directionality, anisotropic mechanical properties, and cellular responses. If these structures are combined through multilayer stacking, it is also necessary to confirm that the layers remain bonded in the wet state.
04How Drug Loading and Multilayer Structures Distribute Different Functions
In Zhao et al. (2022), a nanofiber membrane incorporating PLGA, ligustrazine, and chitosan was constructed, and localized functions were investigated through surface grafting and coaxial spinning. The paper observed fibroblast proliferation and evaluated protective effects using SH-SY5Y cells subjected to oxygen-glucose deprivation and reoxygenation. This constitutes a material and in vitro cell study; it cannot be used to conclude that the repair patch has improved neurological function in patients.4
In Su et al. (2022), electrospinning was combined with melt electrowriting to create a three-layer PCL structure: an aligned nanofiber layer, a random fiber layer, and a printed microfiber layer containing nanohydroxyapatite. The study organized barrier, reinforcement, and bone-side functions across different scales and layers and examined antibacterial and osteoblastic indicators; this work provides preparation and in vitro evaluation evidence.5
The two studies represent different approaches to functional arrangement: one incorporates active components into fibers or surfaces, whereas the other distributes functions across layers. When making a selection, a specific question can first be posed—for example, whether improved handling strength or localized release needs to be studied—before deciding on structural complexity. Adding more components increases the number of variables requiring coordination among release, interface stability, and post-processing.
05How Animal Studies Link Degradation Barriers to Tissue Reconstruction
In Wang et al. (2024), an electrospun membrane composed of nanohydroxyapatite and PLCL was reported, with comparisons of material mechanics, degradation, and performance in rabbit dura mater repair. The paper reported that molecular weight changes in the polymer and preservation of the fiber network can occur simultaneously after implantation, and observed tissue growth and barrier-related performance at the defect site. This suggests that degradation evaluation should not rely solely on mass or molecular weight measurements but should also track overall structure and tissue responses.6
Based on collagen/PLGA animal studies such as Park, it can be observed that material selection has gradually shifted from dry-state membrane performance to the continuous process following implantation: whether the shape can be maintained during placement, how the early interface responds, and whether subsequent material changes are linked to tissue formation. The animal species, defect models, and observation endpoints vary across studies; therefore, materials cannot be ranked by superiority or inferiority based solely on improvement descriptions in abstracts.3,6
06What information do clinical case reports provide?
The PLLA/ gelatin nanofiber membrane study from Deng and 2017 not only introduces the material, cell, and animal evaluations but also reports repair outcomes in clinical cases, stating that no adverse reactions such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage were observed. This indicates that research on this specific material includes human application data; however, the scope of this review is limited to the original abstracts, and patient numbers, follow-up durations, or comparative efficacy cannot be supplemented based on this information.2
Therefore, the evidence selected for this review should be interpreted separately: cell experiments are used to understand the roles of composition and structure, animal experiments are used to observe specific defect environments, and clinical case reports provide practical usage experiences. Case data cannot replace clinical evaluations with clear controls and long-term follow-up; similarly, clinical data for other dura mater products cannot automatically serve as evidence for every electrospun formulation presented here.
07From literature designs to reproducible dura mater repair samples
Clarify the morphology of the repair patch and the functions of each layer
Before sample preparation begins, define the membrane dimensions, thickness or surface density, whether alignment is required, whether a support layer is needed, and whether the cerebral and outer sides have distinct functions. For co-spinning or multilayer systems, record the composition ratio, deposition sequence, and post-treatment together to distinguish between material variations and process fluctuations.
Include wet-state handling and barrier evaluations in sample comparisons
Based on the intended use, compare curling, shrinkage, adhesion, suture retention, and fluid permeability after wetting. Tensile strength alone is insufficient to cover all operational requirements, and fluid tests should also specify pressure and time conditions. Residues, sterilization effects, biocompatibility, and degradation are part of the validation for a complete material system and cannot be represented directly by a single equipment parameter.3,5,6
For multilayer samples, the complete membrane and individual layers can also be tested separately: the complete membrane reflects practical performance and barrier function, while single-layer samples help identify weak points. If one layer shrinks significantly after wetting while another remains unchanged, the overall structure may warp or develop interlayer stress; such phenomena should be recorded during sample preparation rather than explained solely by dry-state cross-sectional images. This comparative approach is a development strategy proposed based on literature-derived structural designs, not a universal qualification standard for all materials.
Communicate equipment configurations around the target structure
Conventional membranes can start with stable fluid supply and uniform collection; aligned structures require matching collection methods; multi-component fibers require attention to uniformity across all fluid supply and deposition channels; multilayer membranes also require arrangements for interlayer transitions and compounding steps. When increasing sample area, verify the thickness, composition, and performance at the edges and center, rather than merely extending the spinning time.
08Common issues in electrospun dura mater material development
Are finer fibers always more suitable for dura mater repair?
Judgment cannot be based solely on fiber diameter. The pore structure, thickness, alignment, wet-state mechanics, and cellular response must be considered together. Fine fibers can form an interface, while multilayer or coarser structural units may also serve a supporting role.1,5
Must dura mater repair patches be made from a single material?
Not necessarily. The selected literature includes co-spun, natural-component-composite, coaxial, and micro-nano layered structures. Whether to composite depends on whether a single structure can fulfill the target function and whether adding components can maintain overall stability.3,4,5,6
Should the formulation be discussed first, or the equipment model?
Start with the desired sample: intended use, dimensions, material system, number of layers, and evaluation metrics. After clarifying whether electrospinning is responsible for the entire membrane or a specific functional layer, discuss fluid supply, nozzle, collection, and environmental control configurations.
References
The following are the original studies used in this review. Literature [1,3,5] is reviewed in conjunction with relevant chapters of the full text, and [2,4,6] is compiled based on the original abstracts and bibliographic information. The interpretation of the studies does not imply that the paper authors or institutions have equipment procurement, collaboration, or customer relationships with TONGLI.
Bibliographic records retain the original publication language for accurate lookup.
Xie J, MacEwan MR, Ray WZ, et al. Radially Aligned, Electrospun Nanofibers as Dural Substitutes for Wound Closure and Tissue Regeneration Applications. ACS Nano. 2010;4(9):5027–5036.
DOI：10.1021/nn101554u ↗Scope of review: the original full-text chapters related to abstracts, structural preparation, and in vitro evaluations
Deng K, Yang Y, Ke Y, et al. A novel biomimetic composite substitute of PLLA/gelatin nanofiber membrane for dura repairing. Neurological Research. 2017;39(9):819–829.
DOI：10.1080/01616412.2017.1348680 ↗Scope of review: the original abstracts and bibliographic information from PubMed; the clinical section is limited to the abstracts' statements
Park HK, Joo W, Gu BK, et al. Collagen/poly(D,L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) composite fibrous scaffold prepared by independent nozzle control multi-electrospinning apparatus for dura repair. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 2018;66:430–437.
DOI：10.1016/j.jiec.2018.06.010 ↗Scope of review: the local full-text homepage, preparation, and animal model content; publisher abstract verification
Zhao Z, Wu T, Cui Y, et al. Design and Fabrication of Nanofibrous Dura Mater with Antifibrosis and Neuroprotection Effects on SH-SY5Y Cells. Polymers. 2022;14(9):1882.
DOI：10.3390/polym14091882 ↗Scope of review: the original abstracts and bibliographic information from PubMed and the publisher
Su Y, Li Z, Zhu H, et al. Electrohydrodynamic Fabrication of Triple-layered Polycaprolactone Dura Mater Substitute with Antibacterial and Enhanced Osteogenic Capability. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering: Additive Manufacturing Frontiers. 2022;1:100026.
DOI：10.1016/j.cjmeam.2022.100026 ↗Scope of review: the local full-text homepage, layered structures, and conclusions
Wang Y, Wu H, Liu Z, et al. A robust and biodegradable hydroxyapatite/poly(lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) electrospun membrane for dura repair. Journal of Materials Chemistry B. 2024;12:6117–6127.
DOI：10.1039/d4tb00863d ↗Scope of review: Original abstracts and bibliographic information of PubMed
The above content is based on analysis and interpretation of publicly published articles. If any infringement is involved, or if the original authors do not wish for the content to be disclosed in this form, please contact us, and we will immediately remove the relevant content.