Table 1 Comparison of adhesion performance between ACPs and various existing tissue adhesives
From: Adhesive cryogel particles for bridging confined and irregular tissue defects
Tissue adhesives | Adhesion energy (J/m2) | Application time for adhesion formation (s) | Biocompatibility | Biodegradability | Morphological adaptability | Maneuverability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACPs | 671 ± 50 |  < 10 | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent | Good |
Hydrogel tape [24] |  ~ 710 | 1–5 | Excellent | Excellent | Good | Excellent |
Paste [37] |  ~ 330 | 5–15 | Good | Fair | Excellent | Good |
Nanoparticle solution [21] | 25 ± 5 |  ~ 30 | - | - | Fair | Fair |
Fibrin gel [24] |  < 20 |  > 60 | Excellent | Excellent | Good | Good |
UV-curable surgical glue [42] | - | 5–30 | Excellent | - | Fair | Good |
Cyanoacrylate glue [24] |  < 100 | 10–60 | Fair | Fair | Good | Good |
Electro-Ox hydrogel tape [29] | 1268 | 10–21,600 | Excellent | Excellent | Good | Excellent |
GI patch [43] | 560 |  < 10 | Excellent | Excellent | Good | Excellent |
Adhesive powder [36] | - |  ~ 10 | Excellent | Fair | Excellent | Good |
Coacervate-derived hydrogel [39] | - |  ~ 600 | Excellent | Fair | Excellent | Good |