## 7 Conclusions and Future Directions  
Here, we have focused on deciphering the problematic _S. aureus_ resistance and biofilm (lifestyle and myths surrounding it) clinical infections associated with implants and wounds. Numerous promising antibacterial nanotheranostic systems have been described in this comprehensive review. Whereas the literature is beginning to scratch the surface of the working mechanisms of antibacterial nanotheranostics, this tutorial review has unraveled the detailed antibacterial and antibiofilm mechanisms of nanotheranostics, allowing efficient therapy and rapid diagnosis to curb _S. aureus_ infections competently. We have sought to provide one of the first attempts to thoroughly criticize the reviewed literature and provide detailed appraisals for combating _S. aureus_ infections. Our \"threeaction appraisals\" are are follows. (i) First, there are preventive actions that would have two wings. The first general wing includes avoiding unnecessary hospital visits, hand hygiene, and legislations against over-the-counter antibiotics, especially in developing countries. Our second wing of recommended prevention actions includes preventing the adverse side effects of the NPs from resistance and toxicity. On the one hand, preventing developed resistance against NPs could be started by establishing standard testing procedures and breakpoints of bacteria's susceptibility to NPs, simulating the standard breakpoints of antibiotic susceptibilities. On the other hand, the toxicity should be avoided by dealing with every single batch of synthesized NPs as a separate material that should be thoroughly examined for toxicity in vitro and in vivo, following standard toxicity tests for NPs. (ii) Theranostic actions include considering NPs combined with antibiotics, glucose, or antiviral drugs, and \"multifunctional theranostic nanofibers\" to diagnose and treat _S. aureus_ infections. We believe in the promising feasible application of these multifunctional theranostic nanofibers in a short time. This belief is based on the fact that the theranostic nanofibers would be applied topically, for example, on wound dressings, against the notorious skin pathogen _S. aureus_. This topical application would decrease the burden of safety issues for NPs without neglecting the necessary toxicity tests that would remain crucial before applications. (iii) Scientific actions include scientific collaborations between multidisciplinary scientists and the international implementation of these appraisals, especially establishing standard testing procedures to close the open uncertainty loop surrounding NPs and their further application as nanotheranostics. A fruitful area for further work would be the implementation of PDT and PTT systems in photodynamic therapy and radiotherapy directed for cancer treatment. We also want to direct the reader's attention to the following recent, authoritative, and interesting literature to considerably investigate other antibacterial and anti-biofilm drug delivery or nanotheranostic systems (e.g., liposomes [251; 252], polymeric nanosystems [253; 254], and chitosan-based NPs [255; 256]) that constitute importance and, unfortunately, remain out-of-the scope of the present work. This work's natural forward movement is to comprehensively review the potential anti-coronavirus properties of nanotheranostics as a smart solution containing the apocalyptic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to unravel the MRSA burden on co-infections with COVID-19. This burden needs to be elucidated, considering the association of resistant MRSA producing Panton-Valentine leukocidin toxins with pneumonia. Moreover, we are currently finalizing our extended work on reviewing the safety concerns associated with the administration of antimicrobial nanotheranostics to unveil the answer to the alarming question: Would nanotheranostics be safe? We would further conduct empirical research, based on our critical experience, on biocompatible antibacterial (anti-_S.