“…For micromorphology changes during degradation, erosion holes were observed on the surfaces of the PGD samples but did not further expand inside the samples. The water absorbability of each PGD group was lower than 7%, which made it difficult for liquid to penetrate the PGD samples after implantation; thus, the depolymerization of ester bonds tended to occur on its surface, as previously mentioned. , In contrast, typical bulk erosion polymers, such as PCL, poly(lactic acid), poly(lactic- co -glycolic acid), and poly(1,8-octanediol- co -citrate), did not undergo dimensional changes during degradation. , The high swelling nature of the bulk erosion polymer resulted in the easy penetration of liquid inside the polymer, which allowed hydrolysis to occur inside and on the surface of the polymer . Thus, the degradation rates of bulk erosion polymers generally showed exponential trends; that of surface erosion polymers, such as poly(glycerol sebacate) and poly(ethylene carbonate), tended to be constant. ,, Linearly fitting the mass loss of each PGD group in our in vivo study, their coefficients of determination R 2 were all higher than 0.95, indicating a relatively constant degradation rate.…”