在治疗以温哥华疤痕量表测量的伤口方面,比较皮肤替代品和植皮的组合与仅植皮的组合:综合荟萃分析。

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
SAGE Open Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20503121241266342
Indri Lakhsmi Putri, Florencia Christina Sindhu, Imaniar Fitri Aisyah, Rachmaniar Pramanasari, Citrawati Dyah Kencono Wungu
{"title":"在治疗以温哥华疤痕量表测量的伤口方面,比较皮肤替代品和植皮的组合与仅植皮的组合:综合荟萃分析。","authors":"Indri Lakhsmi Putri, Florencia Christina Sindhu, Imaniar Fitri Aisyah, Rachmaniar Pramanasari, Citrawati Dyah Kencono Wungu","doi":"10.1177/20503121241266342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Skin is the largest organ in the body and has multiple significant functions. A malformation or injury that compromises its integrity can lead to major issues or even mortality. Wound healing is a vital physiological process of the human skin which facilitates the repair of any damage and the preservation of homeostasis. Possible complications or infections that are fatal may ensue if the patient does not recover within the specified time. Therefore, it is essential to develop biomaterials which facilitate tissue regeneration and exhibit robust biological properties. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare combinations of skin replacements and skin grafts to skin grafts alone for wound treatment, as measured by the Vancouver Scar Scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis utilized various databases, including as PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to conduct a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of combined skin substitutes and skin grafts to skin grafts alone in the treatment of wounds. The results primarily consisted of scar features assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Meta-analysis was conducted on a sample of 216 participants from 7 randomized controlled trials. The trials were conducted from 2002 to 2015. The study demonstrated that the use of skin substitutes resulted in a statistically significant improvement in Vancouver Scar Scales ratings compared to skin grafts alone. The mean change was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.13-2.63; <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis indicates that the use of skin replacements provides substantial advantages and effectively aids in the closure of wounds. There is no inherent superiority among different skin substitutes. Instead, their suitability for specific patient wound circumstances is the determining factor. A comprehensive and advantageous skin substitute of significant magnitude is needed, rather than relying solely on grafts.</p>","PeriodicalId":21398,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11320670/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of combination skin substitutes and skin grafts versus skin grafts only for treating wounds measured by Vancouver Scar Scale: A comprehensive meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Indri Lakhsmi Putri, Florencia Christina Sindhu, Imaniar Fitri Aisyah, Rachmaniar Pramanasari, Citrawati Dyah Kencono Wungu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20503121241266342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Skin is the largest organ in the body and has multiple significant functions. A malformation or injury that compromises its integrity can lead to major issues or even mortality. Wound healing is a vital physiological process of the human skin which facilitates the repair of any damage and the preservation of homeostasis. Possible complications or infections that are fatal may ensue if the patient does not recover within the specified time. Therefore, it is essential to develop biomaterials which facilitate tissue regeneration and exhibit robust biological properties. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare combinations of skin replacements and skin grafts to skin grafts alone for wound treatment, as measured by the Vancouver Scar Scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis utilized various databases, including as PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to conduct a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of combined skin substitutes and skin grafts to skin grafts alone in the treatment of wounds. The results primarily consisted of scar features assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Meta-analysis was conducted on a sample of 216 participants from 7 randomized controlled trials. The trials were conducted from 2002 to 2015. The study demonstrated that the use of skin substitutes resulted in a statistically significant improvement in Vancouver Scar Scales ratings compared to skin grafts alone. The mean change was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.13-2.63; <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis indicates that the use of skin replacements provides substantial advantages and effectively aids in the closure of wounds. There is no inherent superiority among different skin substitutes. Instead, their suitability for specific patient wound circumstances is the determining factor. A comprehensive and advantageous skin substitute of significant magnitude is needed, rather than relying solely on grafts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAGE Open Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11320670/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAGE Open Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241266342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241266342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:皮肤是人体最大的器官,具有多种重要功能。畸形或损伤损害其完整性可导致重大问题甚至死亡。伤口愈合是人体皮肤的一个重要生理过程,有助于修复任何损伤并保持平衡。如果患者不能在规定时间内恢复,可能会出现致命的并发症或感染。因此,开发有助于组织再生并具有强大生物特性的生物材料至关重要。我们对随机对照试验进行了一项荟萃分析,以温哥华疤痕量表为衡量标准,比较皮肤替代物和皮肤移植的组合与单独使用皮肤移植治疗伤口的效果:这项荟萃分析利用了各种数据库,包括 PubMed、ProQuest、Web of Science、Science Direct、Scopus、EBSCOhost 和 ClinicalTrials.gov,对比较皮肤替代物和植皮联合治疗伤口的效果与单独植皮治疗伤口的效果的随机对照试验进行了全面搜索。结果主要包括使用温哥华疤痕量表评估的疤痕特征:对 7 项随机对照试验的 216 名参与者样本进行了 Meta 分析。这些试验的时间跨度为 2002 年至 2015 年。研究表明,与单纯植皮相比,使用皮肤替代品能显著改善温哥华疤痕量表的评分。平均变化为 1.38(95% CI:0.13-2.63;P = 0.03):这项荟萃分析表明,使用皮肤替代物具有很大的优势,能有效帮助伤口闭合。不同的皮肤替代物之间并不存在固有的优劣之分。相反,它们是否适合患者伤口的具体情况才是决定性因素。我们需要一种综合性的、优势显著的皮肤替代品,而不是仅仅依赖于移植物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of combination skin substitutes and skin grafts versus skin grafts only for treating wounds measured by Vancouver Scar Scale: A comprehensive meta-analysis.

Background: Skin is the largest organ in the body and has multiple significant functions. A malformation or injury that compromises its integrity can lead to major issues or even mortality. Wound healing is a vital physiological process of the human skin which facilitates the repair of any damage and the preservation of homeostasis. Possible complications or infections that are fatal may ensue if the patient does not recover within the specified time. Therefore, it is essential to develop biomaterials which facilitate tissue regeneration and exhibit robust biological properties. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare combinations of skin replacements and skin grafts to skin grafts alone for wound treatment, as measured by the Vancouver Scar Scale.

Methods: This meta-analysis utilized various databases, including as PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to conduct a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of combined skin substitutes and skin grafts to skin grafts alone in the treatment of wounds. The results primarily consisted of scar features assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale.

Results: Meta-analysis was conducted on a sample of 216 participants from 7 randomized controlled trials. The trials were conducted from 2002 to 2015. The study demonstrated that the use of skin substitutes resulted in a statistically significant improvement in Vancouver Scar Scales ratings compared to skin grafts alone. The mean change was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.13-2.63; p = 0.03).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that the use of skin replacements provides substantial advantages and effectively aids in the closure of wounds. There is no inherent superiority among different skin substitutes. Instead, their suitability for specific patient wound circumstances is the determining factor. A comprehensive and advantageous skin substitute of significant magnitude is needed, rather than relying solely on grafts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
SAGE Open Medicine
SAGE Open Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
289
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信