Tissue engineering is a promising approach to repair tendon and muscle when natural healing fails. Biohybrid constructs obtained after cells’ seeding and culture in dedicated scaffolds have indeed been considered as relevant tools for mimicking native tissue, leading to a better integration in vivo. They can also be employed to perform advanced in vitro studies to model the cell differentiation or regeneration processes. In this review, we report and analyze the different solutions proposed in literature, for the reconstruction of tendon, muscle, and the myotendinous junction. They classically rely on the three pillars of tissue engineering, i.e., cells, biomaterials and environment (both chemical and physical stimuli). We have chosen to present biomimetic or bioinspired strategies based on understanding of the native tissue structure/functions/properties of the tissue of interest. For each tissue, we sorted the relevant publications according to an increasing degree of complexity in the materials’ shape or manufacture. We present their biological and mechanical performances, observed in vitro and in vivo when available. Although there is no consensus for a gold standard technique to reconstruct these musculo-skeletal tissues, the reader can find different ways to progress in the field and to understand the recent history in the choice of materials, from collagen to polymer-based matrices.

To understand the effect of mechanical stimulation on cell response, bone marrow stromal cells were cultured on electrospun scaffolds under two distinct mechanical conditions (static and dynamic). Comparison between initial and final mechanical and biological properties of the cell‐constructs were conducted over 14 days for both culturing conditions. As a result, mechanically stimulated constructs, in contrast to their static counterparts, showed evident mechanical‐induced cell orientation, an effective aligned collagen and tenomodulin extracellular matrix. This orientation provides clues on the importance of mechanical stimulation to induce a tendon‐like differentiation. In addition, cell and collagen orientation lead to enhanced storage modulus observed under dynamic stimulation. Altogether mechanical stimulation lead to (a) cell and matrix orientation through the sense of the stretch and (b) a dominant elastic response in the cell‐constructs with a minor contribution of the viscosity in the global mechanical behavior. Such a correlation could help in further studies to better understand the effect of mechanical stimulation in tissue engineering.