Comparing Collagenase and Tissue Subcision for Cellulite Treatment of the Buttock and Thigh Regions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

J. Foppiani, Otakar Raska, Cécilia Galinaud, Stephen A. Stearns, Angelica Hernandez Alvarez, Iulianna C. Taritsa, Kirsten Schuster, Olivia A. Ho, S. TerKonda, Bernard T. Lee, Samuel J. Lin
{"title":"Comparing Collagenase and Tissue Subcision for Cellulite Treatment of the Buttock and Thigh Regions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"J. Foppiani, Otakar Raska, Cécilia Galinaud, Stephen A. Stearns, Angelica Hernandez Alvarez, Iulianna C. Taritsa, Kirsten Schuster, Olivia A. Ho, S. TerKonda, Bernard T. Lee, Samuel J. Lin","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000005857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In this systematic review, we assessed the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Clostridium histolyticum collagenase (CCH) and tissue subcision (TS) for treating cellulite, which ranges from subtle to pronounced lesions. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines for CCH and TS treatment to the thigh and gluteal regions. A proportion meta-analysis was then conducted using Stata statistical software. Results: A total of 14 studies were incorporated into the final analysis. Nine focused on TS and five on CCH injection, collectively reporting outcomes for 1254 patients. Of these, 465 received CCH injection and 789 underwent subcision. For bruising, rates were 89% [95% confidence interval (CI), 71%–96%] with CCH injection and 99% (95% CI, 85%–99%) for subcision; pain requiring analgesic was reported at 74% (95% CI, 55%–87%) for CCH and 60% (95% CI, 43%–76%) for subcision; both showed induration at 7% (95% CI, 5%–11% for CCH, 95% CI, 2%–25% for subcision), whereas skin discoloration was higher post-CCH injection at 16% (95% CI, 10%–26%) compared with 7% (95% CI, 5%–10%) postsubcision. Conclusions: Both CCH and TS seem effective treatments for cellulite. However, upon evaluating the adverse outcomes between the two modalities, subcision demonstrated a higher incidence of bruising, albeit similar rates of induration compared with CCH injection. Conversely, the CCH injection group manifested a higher propensity for pain requiring analgesia and notably exhibited increased instances of skin discoloration compared with their subcision patient group. Further standardized research is crucial for more informed cellulite treatment decisions and for comparing efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between TS and CCH.","PeriodicalId":516238,"journal":{"name":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery-Global Open","volume":"25 8","pages":"e5857"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery-Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In this systematic review, we assessed the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Clostridium histolyticum collagenase (CCH) and tissue subcision (TS) for treating cellulite, which ranges from subtle to pronounced lesions. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines for CCH and TS treatment to the thigh and gluteal regions. A proportion meta-analysis was then conducted using Stata statistical software. Results: A total of 14 studies were incorporated into the final analysis. Nine focused on TS and five on CCH injection, collectively reporting outcomes for 1254 patients. Of these, 465 received CCH injection and 789 underwent subcision. For bruising, rates were 89% [95% confidence interval (CI), 71%–96%] with CCH injection and 99% (95% CI, 85%–99%) for subcision; pain requiring analgesic was reported at 74% (95% CI, 55%–87%) for CCH and 60% (95% CI, 43%–76%) for subcision; both showed induration at 7% (95% CI, 5%–11% for CCH, 95% CI, 2%–25% for subcision), whereas skin discoloration was higher post-CCH injection at 16% (95% CI, 10%–26%) compared with 7% (95% CI, 5%–10%) postsubcision. Conclusions: Both CCH and TS seem effective treatments for cellulite. However, upon evaluating the adverse outcomes between the two modalities, subcision demonstrated a higher incidence of bruising, albeit similar rates of induration compared with CCH injection. Conversely, the CCH injection group manifested a higher propensity for pain requiring analgesia and notably exhibited increased instances of skin discoloration compared with their subcision patient group. Further standardized research is crucial for more informed cellulite treatment decisions and for comparing efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between TS and CCH.
比较胶原酶和组织切削术治疗臀部和大腿部位的脂肪团:系统回顾与元分析
背景:在这篇系统性综述中,我们评估了组织溶解梭菌胶原酶(CCH)和组织亚切术(TS)治疗脂肪团的疗效和安全性,脂肪团的病变范围从细微到明显不等。方法:根据 PRISMA 指南,对大腿和臀部的 CCH 和 TS 治疗进行了系统性回顾。然后使用 Stata 统计软件进行了比例荟萃分析。结果共有 14 项研究被纳入最终分析。其中 9 项侧重于 TS,5 项侧重于 CCH 注射,共报告了 1254 名患者的治疗结果。其中,465 名患者接受了 CCH 注射,789 名患者接受了亚切口治疗。在瘀伤方面,CCH 注射的瘀伤率为 89% [95% 置信区间 (CI),71%-96%],亚切口的瘀伤率为 99% (95% CI,85%-99%);据报告,需要镇痛的疼痛率为:CCH 74% (95% CI,55%-87%),亚切口 60% (95% CI,43%-76%);两者都出现了皮肤压痕,CCH 为 7%(95% CI,5%-11%;subcision 为 95% CI,2%-25%),而注射 CCH 后皮肤变色的比例更高,为 16%(95% CI,10%-26%),而 subcision 为 7%(95% CI,5%-10%)。结论:CCH 和 TS 似乎都是有效的治疗方法:CCH 和 TS 似乎都是治疗脂肪团的有效方法。然而,在对两种方法的不良反应进行评估后发现,与 CCH 注射相比,亚切削术的瘀伤发生率更高,但压痕发生率相似。相反,CCH 注射组与亚切口组相比,需要镇痛的疼痛倾向更高,皮肤变色的情况也明显增多。进一步的标准化研究对于做出更明智的脂肪团治疗决定以及比较 TS 和 CCH 的疗效、安全性和成本效益至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信