Articular cartilage injury is a prevalent clinical condition resulting from trauma, tumors, infection, osteoarthritis, and other factors. The intrinsic lack of blood vessels, nerves, and lymphatic vessels within cartilage tissue severely limits its self-regenerative capacity after injury. Current treatment options, such as conservative drug therapy and joint replacement, have inherent limitations. Achieving perfect regeneration and repair of articular cartilage remains an ongoing challenge in the field of regenerative medicine. Tissue engineering has emerged as a key focus in articular cartilage injury research, aiming to utilize cultured and expanded tissue cells combined with suitable scaffold materials to create viable, functional tissues. This review article encompasses the latest advancements in seed cells, scaffolds, and cytokines. Additionally, the role of stimulatory factors including cytokines and growth factors, genetic engineering techniques, biophysical stimulation, and bioreactor systems, as well as the role of scaffolding materials including natural scaffolds, synthetic scaffolds, and nanostructured scaffolds in the regeneration of cartilage tissues are discussed. Finally, we also outline the signaling pathways involved in cartilage regeneration. Our review provides valuable insights for scholars to address the complex problem of cartilage regeneration and repair.

Fracture is a common traumatic injury that is mostly caused by traffic accidents, falls, and falls from height. Fracture healing is a long-term and complex process, and the mode of repair and rate of healing are influenced by a variety of factors. The prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of fractures are issues that urgently need to be addressed. The preparation of the right animal model can accurately simulate the occurrence of fractures, identify and observe normal and abnormal healing processes, study disease mechanisms, and optimize and develop specific treatment methods. We summarize the current status of fracture healing research, the characteristics of different animal models and the modeling methods for different fracture types, analyze their advantages and disadvantages, and provide a reference basis for basic experimental fracture modeling.

Background: Randomized controlled trials have confirmed the effectiveness of four prevalent caloric restriction regimens in reducing obesity-related health risks. However, there is no consensus on the optimal regimen for weight management in adults. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to January 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving adults, evaluating the weight-loss effects of alternate day fasting (ADF), short-term fasting (STF), time-restricted eating (TRE), and continuous energy restriction (CER). The primary outcome was body weight, with secondary outcomes including BMI, fat mass, lean mass, waist circumference, fasting glucose, HOMA-IR, and adverse events. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, ranking regimens using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the probability of being the best. Study quality was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool. Results: Data from 47 RCTs (representing 3363 participants) were included. ADF showed the most significant body weight loss (Mean difference (MD): -3.42; 95% Confidence interval (CI): -4.28 to -2.55), followed by TRE (MD: -2.25; 95% CI: -2.92 to -1.59). STF (MD: -1.87; 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.56) and CER (MD: -1.59; 95% CI: -2.42 to -0.79) rank third and fourth, respectively. STF lead to decline in lean mass (MD: -1.26; 95% CI: -2.16, -0.47). TRE showed benefits on fasting glucose (MD: -2.98; 95% CI: -4.7, -1.26). Subgroup analysis revealed all four caloric restriction regimens likely lead to modest weight loss after 1–3 months, with ADF ranked highest, but by 4–6 months, varying degrees of weight regain occur, particularly with CER, while interventions lasting 7–12 months may result in effective weight loss, with TRE potentially ranking first during both the 4–6 months and 7–12 months periods. ADF showing fewer and shorter-lasting physical symptoms. Conclusion: All four included regiments were effective in reducing body weight, with ADF likely having the most significant impact. Each regimen likely leads to modest weight loss after 1–3 months, followed by weight regain by 4–6 months. However, interventions lasting 7–12 months achieve greater weight loss overall. Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022382478.