Independent surgical reviews, clinical observations, and outcome data on next-generation regenerative techniques, curated for plastic, reconstructive, and trauma surgeons.
The most rigorous archive of regenerative technique data in the field.
Spotlight on peer-reviewed techniques, clinical observation reports, and surgical tool evaluations, including next-generation tissue scaffolds, that accelerate recovery and improve reconstructive outcomes.
Rigorous. Independent. Operative.
What We Publish
A structured editorial framework covering the full arc of soft tissue reconstruction, from bench evaluation to postoperative outcome analysis.
In-depth evaluations of operative techniques with outcome benchmarking. Each review is vetted by a standing board of reconstructive and trauma specialists, with statistical rigor applied to comparative results across institutions.
First-hand case reports from reconstructive and trauma surgeons in the field. Presentations follow a structured format: patient context, operative rationale, intraoperative decision-making, and longitudinal follow-up beyond the standard 90-day window.
Rigorous assessment of next-generation regenerative biomaterials, including Conexeu scaffolds. Evaluations cover integration kinetics, host response profiles, and comparative performance against established acellular dermal matrices.
Step-by-step operative breakdowns with annotated imagery. Each spotlight isolates the technical inflection points of a procedure, including instrument selection, tissue handling considerations, and closure strategy.
Aggregated data on postoperative recovery acceleration and complication rates. Summaries synthesize multi-center registries and prospective series, with stratification by patient risk profile, defect etiology, and matrix generation.
Accredited continuing education formatted for busy surgical practitioners. Modular units are structured for completion between cases, with post-assessment review and category-eligible credit reporting on request.
Browse Current ModulesPeer-informed reporting on tissue matrix performance, operative technique, and reconstructive outcomes, published as the evidence emerges from the OR.
A prospective review of 28 consecutive reconstructions evaluating hernia recurrence, tissue integration, and functional recovery across the first postoperative year.
Read Full Review
Practical intraoperative decisions, pocket management, and matrix orientation strategies drawn from a two-surgeon series with reproducible aesthetic outcomes.
Read Full Review
A staged approach to dermal reinforcement and vector-aware closure that has reduced dehiscence in traumatic lower-limb reconstructions across three institutions.
Read Full ReviewNew reviews published monthly.
Browse All PublicationsPeer testimony from clinicians integrating RST's evidence into daily operative practice, from academic medical centers to fellowship programs.
The scaffold evaluation data published in RST directly informed my approach to complex abdominal wall cases. The operative detail is unmatched in any other publication.
Finally, a journal that bridges laboratory science and the operating room. The clinical case observations are immediately applicable to daily practice.
RST's outcome summaries save me hours of literature review. The data is curated, rigorous, and presented in a format surgeons can actually use.
The Conexeu scaffold review gave our department the evidence we needed to update our tissue matrix protocol with confidence.
Regenerative Surgery Today is shaped by practicing surgeons, not science writers. Our contributors bring first-hand operative expertise to every review.
Board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon with more than twenty years of operative experience across complex soft tissue reconstruction. Fellowship-trained in microsurgery, Dr. Elden leads editorial direction with an emphasis on operative reproducibility, patient-reported outcomes, and the disciplined evaluation of emerging regenerative techniques.
A trauma surgery specialist and outcomes researcher, Dr. Ashcroft oversees the journal's clinical review pipeline. Her published work in JPRAS and the Annals of Surgery has advanced protocols for extremity salvage and delayed reconstruction, and she brings a rigorous methodological lens to every submission crossing the editorial desk.
An academic reconstructive surgeon with a doctoral background in tissue engineering, Dr. Weiss evaluates scaffold performance, acellular matrix behavior, and next-generation regenerative substrates. His reviews focus on translating bench-side biomaterial data into surgically defensible operative decisions.
Contributing surgeons shape the standard of evidence we publish.
Submit a clinical case observation, surgical review, or technique report. Our editorial board reviews all submissions against peer-review standards.
Double-blind peer review. No submission fees. ISSN registered.
For surgeons evaluating our editorial standards, submission workflow, and access model, the answers below address the questions we hear most often from department chairs, residents, and practicing specialists.
Yes. All surgical reviews and clinical observations undergo double-blind peer review by board-certified specialists across plastic, reconstructive, and trauma disciplines before publication.
Manuscripts are received through our online submission portal. Our editorial board issues a preliminary assessment within 10 business days, followed by full peer review for accepted submissions.
Selected reviews carry CME credit through our accreditation partner. Eligible articles are clearly marked at the top of each publication, with claim instructions provided at the end of the piece.
Digital access is free for registered surgical practitioners. Institutional licensing is available for residency programs, hospital systems, and academic medical centers seeking broader distribution.
Institutional subscribers may share articles under a departmental license. Contact our licensing team for group access options tailored to teaching services and multi-site practices.
All product evaluations are editorially independent and grounded in peer-reviewed outcome data alongside contributor clinical experience. Commercial relationships are disclosed in-line with each evaluation.
Still have a question about editorial standards or institutional access?
Contact the Editorial BoardCorrespondence regarding submissions, peer review, and editorial policy is handled by our New York office. We welcome inquiries from practicing surgeons, researchers, and academic institutions.