目的:我们的目的是使用最新的荟萃分析评估基质血管分数(SVF)治疗瘢痕的有效性。
方法:我们使用PubMed,Embase,科克伦,和WebofScience搜索用于评估SVF在瘢痕治疗中的疗效的研究。至少报告了以下结果指标之一:血管分布,色素沉着,厚度,救济,柔韧性,表面积,疼痛,瘙痒和颜色。
结果:共纳入四篇符合条件的文章,包括145例患者(64例SVF患者和81例非SVF患者)。这项荟萃分析的结果表明,SVF在血管方面具有显着的治疗效果(SMD/MD,95%CI:-1.12,-0.02;p=0.04),瘙痒(SMD/MD,95%CI:-0.61,-0.13;p=0.002),POSAS(SMD/MD,95%CI:-5.93,-1.47;p=0.001),和厚度(SMD/MD,95%CI:-1.04,-0.35;p<0.001)。就OSAS(SMD/MD,95%CI:-9.14,0.59;p=0.09),色素沉着(SMD/MD,95%CI:-1.02,0.06;p=0.08),浮雕(SMD/MD,95%CI:-1.14,0.16;p=0.14),表面积(SMD/MD,95%CI:-0.91,0.26;p=0.27),PSAS(SMD/MD,95%CI:-7.20,0.49;p=0.09),疼痛(SMD/MD,95%CI:-0.87,0.07;p=0.10),柔韧性(SMD/MD,95%CI:-0.57,0.01;p=0.06),和颜色(SMD/MD,95%CI:-1.78,0.48;p=0.26),差异无统计学意义。
结论:鉴于异质性和潜在的选择偏差,进一步大规模,prospective,需要多中心临床试验来证实SVF治疗瘢痕的有效性和可靠性。
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) in treating
scars using the latest meta-analysis.
METHODS: We used PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science to search the studies used to evaluate the efficacy of SVF in scar treatment. At least one of the following outcome measures were reported: vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, surface area, pain, itching and color.
RESULTS: A total of four eligible articles comprising 145 patients (64 SVF patients and 81 non-SVF patients) were included. The findings of this meta-analysis indicated that SVF had significant therapeutic effects in terms of vascularity (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.12, -0.02; p = 0.04), itching (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.61, -0.13; p = 0.002), POSAS (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -5.93, -1.47; p = 0.001), and thickness (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.04, -0.35; p < 0.001). In terms of OSAS (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -9.14, 0.59; p = 0.09), pigmentation (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.02, 0.06; p = 0.08), relief (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.14, 0.16; p = 0.14), surface area (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.91, 0.26; p = 0.27), PSAS (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -7.20, 0.49; p = 0.09), pain (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.87, 0.07; p = 0.10), pliability (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -0.57, 0.01; p = 0.06), and color (SMD/MD, 95% CI: -1.78, 0.48; p = 0.26), there were no significant statistical differences.
CONCLUSIONS: In view of the heterogeneity and potential selective bias, further large-scale, prospective, and multicenter clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and reliability of SVF in the treatment of
scars.