Objective:To reveal the evolutionary characteristics of tissue engineering strategies for spinal cord injury repair from basic research to clinical application, based on the core database of Web of Science.Methods:Key words such as ′′scaffold′′, ′′growth factors′′, ′′stem-cells′′ and ′′progenitors′′ were searched for in the core database of Web of Science before December 31, 2024, with different combinations of keywords used. The search range was set to ′′Topic′′, and the category was ′′Article′′. The original literature data were screened, sorted and formatted using Excel and self-made R program. High-frequency words and annual scientific output were analysed using the Bibliometrix software package. The literature bird online analysis tool was used to screen the high-impact team and draw the author relationship map.Results:A total of 62 142 articles were retrieved, involving multiple disciplines such as biology and medicine. scaffold (17 times), growth factors (9 times) and stem-cells (37 times) were the three most frequently occuring tissue engineering elements in the spinal cord injury. In terms of scientific output in the field of spinal cord injury mechanism research, the number of articles on stem cell-related research began to exceed that of biological scaffolds and growth factors in 2001 (7 articles campared to 1 and 5 articles), and this increase has continued. For over 20 years, the number of stem cell-related articles has consistently outnumbered those on biological scaffolds and growth factors, with the disparity widening over time. Since 2010, the number of articles on growth factor-related research has shown a downward trend, while the number of articles on biological scaffold-related research has increased steadily. Since 2012, the number of articles on biological scaffold-related research (33 articles) has consistently exceeded that of growth factors (22 articles). In the scientific output of clinical research in the field of spinal cord injury, the number of articles on stem cell-related research has gradually increased since 2002 (4 articles), and has consistently outnumbered those on biological scaffolds and growth factors. Since 2011, the number of articles on growth factor-related research has decreased, while the number of articles on biological scaffold-related research has increased. Since 2016, the number of articles on biological scaffold-related research (6 articles) has been higher than that of growth factors (3 articles). Before December 31, 2024, although the number of articles on stem cells was higher than those on growth factors and biological scaffolds (22 and 20 articles), the difference was far less significant than that for mechanism research (101 and 90 articles). The median scientific output of the three-element composite (48 articles) and its respective applications (37 stem cells articles, 33 growth factors articles, 17 biological scaffolds articles) in the field of tissue engineering all appeared in 2011. The scientific output of the three-element composite application in the field of spinal cord injury research was the highest in 2010 (9 articles). Taking 2010 as a boundary point, the research process can be divided into an early and a late stage. Early research focused on a single element, whereas late stage research turned to the composite application of all three elements. Related research results showed a rapid growth trend. Around 2010, the number of articles on the application of the three elements in the field of spinal cord injury was 2 445. The field entered a new period of rapid development around this time, with a growth rate of 9.15%, and has remained stable since then. Around 2010, the discovery and application of induced pluripotent stem cells also began to receive significant attention (496 articles), and related research has remained active ever since. The top five most influential researchers in the field of spinal cord injury neurorestoration were Dai JW (Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China), Gage FH (Solke Institute of Biology, USA), G?tz M (Biomedical Center of the University of Munich, Germany), Song HJ (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA), and Shoichet MS (University of Toronto, Canada). Notably, only Dai JW team has published clinical studies exhibiting a head effect in the field.Conclusions:Based on the core database of Web of Science, the development of spinal cord injury was explored. Basic research into biological scaffolds, stem cells and growth factors has developed rapidly, with stem cells and biological scaffold material research being particularly active. The three elements are gradually tending towards multi-strategy combined application. Although research objectives in spinal cord injury have advanced from exploring the basic research of the three elements to clinical transformation, the efficiency with which research results are transformed into clinical practice remains low.