Search

Yongjun Huang,1,* Yong Chen,2,* Guoyun Cheng,1,* Wenqiang Li,3 Hongan Zhang,1,4 Chaoqun Yu,1 Jia Fang,1 Jieyi Zuo,1 Ying Li,1 Lei Xu,1 Dawei Sun1 1Department of Orthopedics, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, 510317, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Orthopedics, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan, People’s Hospital, Qingyuan, 511518, People’s Republic of China; 3Engineering Technology Research Center for Sports Assistive Devices of Guangdong, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, 510500, People’s Republic of China; 4The Second Clinical School of Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510260, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Lei Xu; Dawei Sun, Department of Orthopedics, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, 11th Floor, Building 3, No. 466, Xingang Middle Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, 510317, People’s Republic of China, Email orthoxl@163.com; sundw@gd2h.org.cnBackground: As the first line of immune defense and the largest organ of body, skin is vulnerable to damage caused by surgery, burns, collisions and other factors. Wound healing in the skin is a long and complex physiological process that is influenced by a number of different factors. Proper wound care can greatly improve the speed of wound healing and reduce the generation of scars. However, traditional wound dressings (bandages, gauze, etc.) often used in clinical practice have a single function, lack of active ingredients and are limited in use. Hydrogels with three-dimensional network structure are a potential biomedical material because of their physical and chemical environment similar to extracellular matrix. In particular, hydrogel dressings with low price, good biocompatibility, degradability, antibacterial and angiogenic activity are favored by the public.Methods: Here, a carboxymethyl chitosan-based hydrogel

Huang Y, Chen Y, Cheng G, et al. Int J Nanomedicine. 2024;19:231–245. The authors have advised due to an error that occurred inadvertently at the time of figure assembly, Figure 5C on page 240 is incorrect. The correct Figure 5 is as follows. Figure 5 Continued. Figure 5 Results of in vitro cytocompatibility testing. (A) CCK-8 assay and (B) cell viability on hydrogels after 1, 3 and 5 days of culture. (C) Images of live/dead staining of cells following incubation on hydrogels. (D) Images taken using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) show HUVECs stained with rhodamine-coupled phalloidin (red) and DAPI (blue) after three days of growth. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine statistical significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. The authors apologise for this error.