背景:鱼纹(SD),真皮的线性疤痕,由不成比例的皮肤伸展引起的,这表明存在美容问题,甚至危及个人的社会心理健康。Microneedling,代表一种相对较新的程序疗法,在SD的补救措施中显示出明亮但不同的结果。我们的研究系统地调查并进一步评估了微针对SD的疗效。
方法:本研究遵循PRISMA指南。根据预先计划的搜索策略,我们对4个电子数据库进行了全面搜索,以获得符合条件的临床对照研究.对于连续数据和二分数据,计算具有95%置信区间的标准化平均差(SMD)和奇数比(OR),分别。
结果:根据预定标准,纳入了11篇符合条件的6篇RCT和5篇非RCT文章。关于临床改善,在微针射频治疗亚组中观察到显著差异(SMD:0.57,95%CI0.20-0.94,P=0.003).第二亚组的合并结果显示,微针和激光产生用于治疗SD的几乎相当的有效性,而没有显著差异(P=0.35)。微针疗法与非激光治疗的第三亚组的分析结果表明,在5%显着性水平上存在显着差异(SMD:1.01,95%CI0.51-1.51,P<0.0001)。关于患者满意度,汇总估计得出的结论是,MRF和激光组之间的参与者对治疗效果的满意度具有可比性(P=0.26),而微针显示明显优于激光(P=0.04)和非激光治疗(SMD:0.95,95%CI0.52-1.38,P<0.0001)。与其他治疗相比,微针治疗中炎症后色素沉着过度(PIH)的发生不明显,差异有统计学意义(P=0.0003)。与激光治疗相比,微针治疗引起明显的疼痛(P<0.00001)。
结论:本系统综述和荟萃分析为微针技术治疗SD的有效性和安全性提供了初步证据。
方法:本期刊要求作者为每篇文章分配一定程度的证据。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www。springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: Striae distensae (SD), linear scars of derma, caused by disproportionate skin stretching, which indicates a cosmetic problem and even endangers individuals\' psychosocial health. Microneedling, representing a relatively new procedural therapy, has shown brightening but diverse results in the remedy of SD. Our study systematically investigates and further evaluates the efficacy of microneedling for SD.
METHODS: This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. According to the preplanned search strategy, four electronic databases were comprehensively searched for eligible clinical controlled studies. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data and dichotomous data, respectively.
RESULTS: According to the predetermined criteria, eleven eligible articles of six RCTs and five non-RCTs were included. Concerning clinical improvement, a significant difference was observed in the microneedle radiofrequency treatment subgroup (SMD: 0.57, 95% CI 0.20-0.94, P = 0.003). The pooled result of the second subgroup revealed that microneedling and lasers producing almost comparable effectiveness for treating SD with no significant difference (P = 0.35). The analysis result of the third subgroup of microneedling versus non-laser therapy indicated significant difference at the 5% significance level (SMD:1.01, 95% CI 0.51-1.51, P < 0.0001). With regard to patient satisfaction, the pooled estimate concluded that participants\' satisfaction with therapeutic effect between MRF and laser group was comparable (P = 0.26), whereas microneedling exhibited significant superiority than both laser (P = 0.04) and non-laser treatments (SMD: 0.95, 95% CI 0.52-1.38, P < 0.0001). Occurrence of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) was not obvious in microneedling therapy compared to other treatments, and a statistically difference was observed (P = 0.0003). Microneedling treatment caused significant pain compared with laser therapy (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic
review and meta-analysis has provided initial evidence of the efficacy and safety of microneedling technology for SD.
METHODS: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .