-
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery May 2024Laser therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for improving the appearance and symptoms associated with hypertrophic and keloid scars. In this network... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Laser therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for improving the appearance and symptoms associated with hypertrophic and keloid scars. In this network meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different laser types in treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of four databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published up until July 2023. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data in a network meta-analysis (NMA) model, using R software.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies, comprising 550 patients, were included in the analysis. Pooling our data showed that fractional carbon dioxide (FCO2) plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was superior to control in terms of Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), pliability score, and thickness; [MD = - 5.97; 95% CI (- 7.30; - 4.65)], [MD = - 2.68; 95% CI (- 4.03; - 1.33)], [MD = - 2.22; 95% CI (- 3.13; - 1.31)], respectively. However, insignificant difference was observed among FCO2 plus 5-FU compared to control group in terms of erythema, vascularity, redness and perfusion, and pigmentation [MD = - 0.71; 95% CI (- 2.72; 1.30)], [MD = - 0.44; 95% CI (- 1.26; 0.38)], respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our NMA found that the FCO2 plus 5-FU was the most effective intervention in decreasing the VSS and thickness, while FCO2 plus CO2 was the most effective intervention in decreasing the pliability score. Further research is needed to determine the optimal laser parameters and long-term efficacy of laser therapy in hypertrophic and keloid scars.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV
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 .
PubMed: 38760539
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-024-04027-9 -
Burns & Trauma 2024Laser therapy has emerged to play a valuable role in the treatment of paediatric burn scars; however, there is heterogeneity in the literature, particularly concerning...
BACKGROUND
Laser therapy has emerged to play a valuable role in the treatment of paediatric burn scars; however, there is heterogeneity in the literature, particularly concerning optimal timing for initiation of laser therapy. This study aims to investigate the effect of factors such as scar age, type of laser and laser treatment interval on burn scar outcomes in children by meta-analysis of previous studies.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted across seven databases in May 2022 to understand the effects of laser therapy on burn scar outcomes in paediatric patients by metanalysis of standardized mean difference (SMD) between pre- and post-laser intervention. Meta-analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 4.0. Fixed models were selected when there was no significant heterogeneity, and the random effects model was selected for analysis when significant heterogeneity was identified. For all analyses, a -value < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 467 patients. Laser therapy significantly improved Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS)/Total Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (Total POSAS), vascularity, pliability, pigmentation and scar height of burn scars. Significant heterogeneity was found between the studies and thus subgroup analyses were performed. Early laser therapy (<12 months post-injury) significantly improved VSS/POSAS scores compared to latent therapy (>12 months post-injury) {SMD -1.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.08; -0.87], < 0.001 -0.59 [95%CI = -1.10; -0.07], = 0.03} as well as vascularity {SMD -3.95 [95%CI = -4.38; -3.53], < 0.001 -0.48 [95%CI = -0.66; -0.30], < 0.001}. Non-ablative laser was most effective, significantly reducing VSS/POSAS, vascularity, pliability and scar height outcomes compared to ablative, pulse dye laser and a combination of ablative and pulse dye laser. Shorter treatment intervals of <4 weeks significantly reduced VSS/POSAS and scar height outcomes compared to intervals of 4 to 6 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
Efficacy of laser therapy in the paediatric population is influenced by scar age, type of laser and interval between laser therapy application. The result of this study particularly challenges the currently accepted initiation time for laser treatment. Significant heterogeneity was observed within the studies, which suggests the need to explore other confounding factors influencing burn scar outcomes after laser therapy.
PubMed: 38312741
DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkad046 -
Cureus Dec 2023Keloids, benign fibrous growths resulting from atypical skin responses to injuries, present a complex challenge in dermatology. These lesions, characterized by excessive... (Review)
Review
Keloids, benign fibrous growths resulting from atypical skin responses to injuries, present a complex challenge in dermatology. These lesions, characterized by excessive collagen production, often lead to physical discomfort and psychological distress. While various treatment methods exist, the lack of a universally effective modality underscores the need for a systematic evaluation of current approaches. This systematic review aims to comprehensively analyze the current available treatment modalities used for the management of keloids in the pediatric population in terms of their effectiveness, safety, and quality of life outcomes. The review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies published in English. The review specifically focused on randomized controlled trials involving patients under 18 diagnosed with keloids, assessing different treatment modalities, and reporting validated measures of treatment efficacy, safety outcomes, and quality of life. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool for randomized studies to ensure the methodological quality of the included trials. Four studies met the inclusion criteria, collectively involving 196 pediatric patients. Treatment interventions included glucocorticosteroid and fusidic acid cream with silicone gel patches, botulinum toxin type A injections, and Scarban silicone gel sheets. Patient-reported outcomes exhibited varying degrees of improvement in scar size, vascularity, and pliability. Complications, such as rash and wound infection, were reported in some cases. Based on our review of the selected studies and due to the incompletely understood pathogenesis of keloids, there is an ongoing lack of universally effective treatment modality for the management of keloids resulting in their persistently high recurrence rate.
PubMed: 38205454
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50290 -
Journal of Voice : Official Journal of... Dec 2023Vocal fold fat injection is a technique for treating glottic insufficiency (GI) resulting from various conditions. The use of fat as a graft has several advantages over... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Vocal fold fat injection is a technique for treating glottic insufficiency (GI) resulting from various conditions. The use of fat as a graft has several advantages over other grafts. Similar pliability, and vibratory characteristics as a normal vocal fold, not causing foreign body reactions, having the potential to contain stem cells, and often can be done in the office. Long-term results, however, are unpredictable. The objective of this study is to carry out a systematic review of published articles using the technique of fat injection in the vocal folds.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
REVIEW METHODS
A literature search was conducted utilizing the combination of the following keywords "vocal folds fat injection," "laryngoplasty," and "autologous fat injection vocal folds." The criteria inclusion of the study for the systematic review were based on PICOTS (population, intervention, comparison outcome, timing, and setting) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statements. Outcomes reviewed included technique, study duration, perceptual and acoustic analysis, and quality of life preoperation and 1-year postoperation.
RESULTS
A systematic review on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases included 13 studies analyzing the data of 472 patients, that had fat injection laryngoplasty for treatment of GI. The causes of GI varied substantially across studies. Considerable heterogeneity across studies was found, including technique for harvest, processing the fat, site of injection, and acoustic analysis. In the studies that measured maximum phonation time (MPT) there was a significant improvement in a follow-up of at least 1 year after the injection. The patient's perception of vocal quality, measured by the Voice Handicap Index, also showed significant improvement in several studies after fat injection laryngoplasty.
CONCLUSION
Fat injection laryngoplasty seems to be safe and effective for GI for at least 12 months. Multiple studies show favorable outcomes, but the lack of control groups, the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, nonstandardized techniques, and objective voice evaluations limit this evaluation.
PubMed: 38142186
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.09.029 -
PloS One 2023The study aims to identify whether factors such as time to initiation of laser therapy following scar formation, type of laser used, laser treatment interval and...
AIM
The study aims to identify whether factors such as time to initiation of laser therapy following scar formation, type of laser used, laser treatment interval and presence of complications influence burn scar outcomes in adults, by meta-analysis of previous studies.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in May 2022 in seven databases to select studies on the effects of laser therapy in adult hypertrophic burn scars. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022347836).
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 491 patients. Laser therapy significantly improved overall VSS/POSAS, vascularity, pliability, pigmentation and scar height of burn scars. Vascularity improvement was greater when laser therapy was performed >12 months (-1.50 [95%CI = -2.58;-0.42], p = 0.01) compared to <12 months after injury (-0.39 [95%CI = -0.68; -0.10], p = 0.01), the same was true for scar height ((-1.36 [95%CI = -2.07; -0.66], p<0.001) vs (-0.56 [95%CI = -0.70; -0.42], p<0.001)). Pulse dye laser (-4.35 [95%CI = -6.83; -1.86], p<0.001) gave a greater reduction in VSS/POSAS scores compared to non-ablative (-1.52 [95%CI = -2.24; -0.83], p<0.001) and ablative lasers (-0.95 [95%CI = -1.31; -0.59], p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
Efficacy of laser therapy is influenced by the time lapse after injury, the type of laser used and the interval between laser treatments. Significant heterogeneity was observed among studies, suggesting the need to explore other factors that may affect scar outcomes.
PubMed: 37756273
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292097 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Oct 2023At present, there are many kinds of hypertrophic scar treatment methods, among which pressure therapy and silicone therapy are very common and standard therapies, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Safety of Pressure Therapy Alone and in Combination with Silicone in Prevention of Hypertrophic Scars: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
At present, there are many kinds of hypertrophic scar treatment methods, among which pressure therapy and silicone therapy are very common and standard therapies, but whether they are used alone or in combination is still controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of pressure therapy and silicone therapy (PTS) with pressure therapy alone (PT) in the treatment of hypertrophic scars to provide clinicians with information so that they can make better decisions.
METHODS
Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected by searching PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to assess scar scores (The Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS; Visual Analog Scale, VAS) and adverse effects.
RESULTS
We screened 1270 articles and included 6 RCTs including 228 patients. We found that height (MD = 0.15, 95%CI 0.10-0.21, p < 0.01) and pliability (MD = 0.35, 95%CI 0.25-0.46, p <0.01) had a significant difference, these two measures showed that the PTS group was superior to the PT group. Results in other aspects, such as VSS, vascularity, pigmentation, VAS, and adverse effects were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no significant difference between PTS and PT in the overall treatment efficacy of hypertrophic scars with similar VSS and adverse effects, but PTS might have potential benefits for height and pliability. Additional studies with larger sample size and sound methodological quality are needed to confirm our conclusions. Level of Evidence IV 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 .
Topics: Humans; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Silicones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37648929
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03591-w -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Feb 2023Keloids and hypertrophic scars can affect the appearance and normal function of patients, and may severely affect patients' physical and mental health. Many methods have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Keloids and hypertrophic scars can affect the appearance and normal function of patients, and may severely affect patients' physical and mental health. Many methods have been used for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars, there is no standardized method so far. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of verapamil and triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) in treating keloids and hypertrophic scars.
METHODS
All studies from their inception date up to August 2022 were searched using four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). The weighted mean differences and the risk ratio were calculated for comparing continuous variables and dichotomous variables, respectively.
RESULTS
A total of nine randomized controlled trials involving 567 patients were identified. This meta-analysis indicated that TAC group showed significantly better effects compared with verapamil group in the reduction of height at 3 and 9 weeks, pliability at 3, 9, and 18 weeks, vascularity at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 weeks, whereas verapamil group showed significantly better effects compared with TAC group in the reduction of pliability at 21 and 24 weeks. Verapamil group showed a significantly lower incidence of skin atrophy, telangiectasia, and hypopigmentation compared with TAC group. However, the incidence of burning sensation in verapamil group was higher than that in TAC group.
CONCLUSION
Concerning the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars, TAC was more effective than verapamil for improving vascularity; TAC was superior to verapamil in improving height within 9 weeks of treatment; TAC produced superior result for improving pliability within 18 weeks of treatment, whereas verapamil produced superior result between 18 and 24 weeks of treatment. Verapamil had fewer adverse events than TAC and can be used as a safer alternative for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II
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 .
Topics: Humans; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Keloid; Verapamil; Injections, Intralesional; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36562775
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-03229-3 -
Frontiers in Genetics 2022Epigenomics has become a significant research interest at a time when rapid environmental changes are occurring. Epigenetic mechanisms mainly result from systems like...
Epigenomics has become a significant research interest at a time when rapid environmental changes are occurring. Epigenetic mechanisms mainly result from systems like DNA methylation, histone modification, and RNA interference. Epigenetic mechanisms are gaining importance in classical genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, cancer biology, epidemiology, and evolution. Epigenetic mechanisms play important role in the action and interaction of plant genes during development, and also have an impact on classical plant breeding programs, inclusive of novel variation, single plant heritability, hybrid vigor, plant-environment interactions, stress tolerance, and performance stability. The epigenetics and epigenomics may be significant for crop adaptability and pliability to ambient alterations, directing to the creation of stout climate-resilient elegant crop cultivars. In this review, we have summarized recent progress made in understanding the epigenetic mechanisms in plant responses to biotic and abiotic stresses and have also tried to provide the ways for the efficient utilization of epigenomic mechanisms in developing climate-resilient crop cultivars, especially in chickpea, and other legume crops.
PubMed: 35937986
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.900253 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Oct 2022Autologous fat transfer (AFT) has been introduced as a potential treatment option for scar-tissue and its related symptoms. However, the scientific evidence for its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Autologous fat transfer (AFT) has been introduced as a potential treatment option for scar-tissue and its related symptoms. However, the scientific evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of autologous fat transfer for the treatment of scar-tissue and its related conditions.
METHODS
PubMed/Medline database was queried from its inception till the end of November 2021. All the relevant studies assessing the effect of autologous fat transfer in the treatment of scar-related conditions were pooled in using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
9 studies (n=179) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrates significant improvement in all subscales of the POSAS patient score with most prominent in color 2.4 points (95% CI 1.78-3.041), stiffness 2.9 points (95% CI 2.33-3.45), irregularity 2.2 points (95% CI 1.093-3.297) and thickness 1.8 points (95% CI 0.804-2.719), respectively. Pain and itch improved relatively lesser, 1.3 points (95% CI 0.958-1.674) and 0.6 points (95% CI 0.169-1.215), respectively. The POSAS observer scale showed a relatively lower improvement with the least in vascularity 0.5 points (95% CI 0.098-0.96), pigmentation 0.8 points (95% CI 0.391-1.276) and surface area 0.8 points (95% CI 0.34-1.25). Thickness improved by 1.4 points (95% CI 0.582-2.3), relief 1.0 points (95% CI 0.461-1.545) and pliability 1.5 points (95% CI 1.039-2.036).
CONCLUSION
Our findings demonstrate that autologous fat transfer (AFT) is a promising treatment for scar-related conditions as it provides beneficial results in the scar quality. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of AFT and high-level evidence studies such as, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are required.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III
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 .
Topics: Humans; Cicatrix; Transplantation, Autologous; Cohort Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35411408
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-022-02869-9 -
Lasers in Medical Science Mar 2022Various clinical trials have explored whether the pulsed dye laser (PDL) method is safe to treat scars, especially surgical scars. However, comprehensive evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Various clinical trials have explored whether the pulsed dye laser (PDL) method is safe to treat scars, especially surgical scars. However, comprehensive evidence confirming the exact outcomes of PDL for treating surgical scars is lacking. The efficacy and safety of PDL in the treatment of surgical scars were determined through a review of several studies. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched, and the main clinical outcomes were Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores in terms of pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, and height. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses of the data; we chose a standardized mean difference (SMZ) to present the results with 95% confidence interval (CI). Overall, seven randomized controlled trials were used for this meta-analysis, all of these papers used 585 nm or 595 nm PDL with 7 mm or 10 mm spot size and a fluence of 3.5 to 10 J/cm for treating surgical scars; besides, the pulse duration ranged from 450 μs to 10 ms. We found that PDL significantly resulted in decreased VSS scores (P = 0.02) in four aspects: pigmentation (P = 0.0002), vascularity (P < 0.00001), pliability (P = 0.0002), and height (P = 0.0002). Moreover, scar improvement was similar when using 585 nm and 595 nm PDL in terms of pigmentation (P = 0.76), vascularity (P = 0.34), pliability (P = 0.64), and height (P = 0.57). Furthermore, our review indicated that PDL has no obvious adverse effects for most people, except transitory erythema and purpura. The meta-analysis showed that both 585 nm and 595 nm PDL therapy can effectively reduce the VSS score, suggesting that PDL can be a safe and effective method for the treatment of surgical scars.
Topics: Cicatrix; Erythema; Humans; Lasers, Dye; Low-Level Light Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34351564
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-021-03385-z