脂肪团治疗方法的比较分析:系统回顾

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Su Kwan Lim, Gozde Gultekin, Srutti Suresan, Anu Jacob, Yutong Zou, Dinithi D Liyanage, Jvalant N Parekh, Akash K Mavilakandy, Krishna Vyas, Ankur Khajuria
{"title":"脂肪团治疗方法的比较分析:系统回顾","authors":"Su Kwan Lim, Gozde Gultekin, Srutti Suresan, Anu Jacob, Yutong Zou, Dinithi D Liyanage, Jvalant N Parekh, Akash K Mavilakandy, Krishna Vyas, Ankur Khajuria","doi":"10.1007/s00266-024-04365-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cellulite is a highly prevalent and aesthetically distressing skin condition. Whilst there are a variety of treatment modalities, none are definitively established.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to assess invasive and noninvasive treatment modalities for cellulite management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review protocol was published and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42022359334). A comprehensive electronic search for relevant randomised controlled trials, (RCTs) was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 753 studies were initially identified, of which 24 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfied the eligibility criteria with a total of 2084 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.33 ± 13.4 weeks. Evaluated interventions included mechanical stimulation, topical therapy, shock wave therapy (SWT), laser and light-based devices, radiofrequency therapy, subcutaneous injectables, and ultrasound. SWT emerged as a standout intervention, demonstrating a consistent cellulite reduction score of 2.07 ± 0.39 across four studies. Radiofrequency therapy exhibited a statistically significant reduction of thigh circumference (- 2.09 cm, p < 0.001) and subcutaneous tissue thickness (- 2.23 cm, p < 0.001). Subcutaneous injectables, specifically collagenase Clostridium histolyticum-aaes, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the clinician-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (17.0%) and patient-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (25.7%) (p < 0.001). The overall quality of the studies using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first methodologically robust systematic review evaluating interventions for cellulite. SWT, radiofrequency therapy, and subcutaneous injectables have shown promising findings in cellulite treatment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Cellulite Treatment Modalities: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Su Kwan Lim, Gozde Gultekin, Srutti Suresan, Anu Jacob, Yutong Zou, Dinithi D Liyanage, Jvalant N Parekh, Akash K Mavilakandy, Krishna Vyas, Ankur Khajuria\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00266-024-04365-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cellulite is a highly prevalent and aesthetically distressing skin condition. Whilst there are a variety of treatment modalities, none are definitively established.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to assess invasive and noninvasive treatment modalities for cellulite management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review protocol was published and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42022359334). A comprehensive electronic search for relevant randomised controlled trials, (RCTs) was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 753 studies were initially identified, of which 24 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfied the eligibility criteria with a total of 2084 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.33 ± 13.4 weeks. Evaluated interventions included mechanical stimulation, topical therapy, shock wave therapy (SWT), laser and light-based devices, radiofrequency therapy, subcutaneous injectables, and ultrasound. SWT emerged as a standout intervention, demonstrating a consistent cellulite reduction score of 2.07 ± 0.39 across four studies. Radiofrequency therapy exhibited a statistically significant reduction of thigh circumference (- 2.09 cm, p < 0.001) and subcutaneous tissue thickness (- 2.23 cm, p < 0.001). Subcutaneous injectables, specifically collagenase Clostridium histolyticum-aaes, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the clinician-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (17.0%) and patient-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (25.7%) (p < 0.001). The overall quality of the studies using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first methodologically robust systematic review evaluating interventions for cellulite. SWT, radiofrequency therapy, and subcutaneous injectables have shown promising findings in cellulite treatment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-04365-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-04365-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景介绍脂肪团是一种非常普遍且影响美观的皮肤问题。虽然有多种治疗方法,但没有一种是确切的:本系统性综述旨在评估橘皮组织管理的侵入性和非侵入性治疗方法:方法:综述方案已发布并事先注册(PROSPERO CRD42022359334)。在 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库中对相关随机对照试验(RCTs)进行了全面的电子检索。研究质量和偏倚风险分别使用 Cochrane 的偏倚风险工具进行评估:总共初步确定了 753 项研究,其中 24 项随机对照试验 (RCT) 符合资格标准,共有 2084 名患者接受了平均为 3.33 ± 13.4 周的随访。接受评估的干预措施包括机械刺激、局部治疗、冲击波疗法(SWT)、激光和光基设备、射频疗法、皮下注射和超声波。冲击波疗法是一项突出的干预措施,四项研究的橘皮组织减少评分一致为 2.07 ± 0.39。射频疗法可显著减少大腿周长(- 2.09 厘米,p 结论:射频疗法可显著减少大腿周长(- 2.09 厘米,p 结论:射频疗法可显著减少大腿周长(- 2.09 厘米,p 结论):这是第一份对橘皮组织干预措施进行评估的方法可靠的系统性综述。SWT、射频疗法和皮下注射疗法在橘皮组织治疗中显示出良好的效果:该期刊要求作者为每篇文章指定一个证据等级。有关循证医学评级的完整说明,请参阅目录或在线作者须知(www.springer.com/00266)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Cellulite Treatment Modalities: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cellulite is a highly prevalent and aesthetically distressing skin condition. Whilst there are a variety of treatment modalities, none are definitively established.

Objective: This systematic review aims to assess invasive and noninvasive treatment modalities for cellulite management.

Methods: The review protocol was published and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42022359334). A comprehensive electronic search for relevant randomised controlled trials, (RCTs) was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool, respectively.

Results: Overall, 753 studies were initially identified, of which 24 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfied the eligibility criteria with a total of 2084 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.33 ± 13.4 weeks. Evaluated interventions included mechanical stimulation, topical therapy, shock wave therapy (SWT), laser and light-based devices, radiofrequency therapy, subcutaneous injectables, and ultrasound. SWT emerged as a standout intervention, demonstrating a consistent cellulite reduction score of 2.07 ± 0.39 across four studies. Radiofrequency therapy exhibited a statistically significant reduction of thigh circumference (- 2.09 cm, p < 0.001) and subcutaneous tissue thickness (- 2.23 cm, p < 0.001). Subcutaneous injectables, specifically collagenase Clostridium histolyticum-aaes, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the clinician-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (17.0%) and patient-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (25.7%) (p < 0.001). The overall quality of the studies using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was moderate.

Conclusion: This is the first methodologically robust systematic review evaluating interventions for cellulite. SWT, radiofrequency therapy, and subcutaneous injectables have shown promising findings in cellulite treatment.

Level of evidence i: The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
479
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.
×
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