Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2024
Evaluating Stromal Vascular Fraction As a Treatment for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jacobs Tyler, Mahoney Connor, Mohammed Saad, Ziccardi Vincent
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the potential of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) for peripheral nerve regeneration.
METHODS: A scoping review of Scopus and PubMed databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria were human or animal studies exploring the use of SVF for peripheral nerve regeneration. Studies were categorized by assessed outcomes: pain assessment, neural integrity, muscle recovery, and functional recovery. Level of evidence and study quality were assessed.
RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. SVF injection in humans with trigeminal neuropathic pain reduced pain scores from 7.5 ± 1.58 to 4.3 ± 3.28. SVF injection improved sensation in humans with leprosy neuropathy. Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated nerve autografts improved wet muscle weight ratios (0.65 ± 0.11 vs 0.55 ± 0.06) and sciatic functional index (SFI) scores (-68.2 ± 9.2 vs -72.5 ± 8.9). Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated conduits increased the ratio of gastrocnemius muscle weights (RGMW) (7-10% improvement), myelinated fibers (1,605 ± 806.2 vs 543.6 ± 478.66), and myelin thickness (5-20% increase). Repairing transected rat facial nerves with SVF-coated conduits improved whisker motion (9.22° ± 0.65° vs 1.90° ± 0.84°) and myelin thickness (0.57 μm ± 0.17 vs 0.45 μm ± 0.14 μm). Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated nerve allografts improved RGMW (85 vs 50%), SFI scores (-20 to -10 vs -40 to -30), and Basso, Beatie, and Bresnahan locomotor scores (18 vs 15). All metrics mentioned above were statistically significant. The human studies were level 4 evidence due to being case series, while animal studies were the lowest level of evidence.
CONCLUSION: Despite initial promising results, the low-level evidence from the included studies warrants further investigation.
METHODS: A scoping review of Scopus and PubMed databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria were human or animal studies exploring the use of SVF for peripheral nerve regeneration. Studies were categorized by assessed outcomes: pain assessment, neural integrity, muscle recovery, and functional recovery. Level of evidence and study quality were assessed.
RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. SVF injection in humans with trigeminal neuropathic pain reduced pain scores from 7.5 ± 1.58 to 4.3 ± 3.28. SVF injection improved sensation in humans with leprosy neuropathy. Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated nerve autografts improved wet muscle weight ratios (0.65 ± 0.11 vs 0.55 ± 0.06) and sciatic functional index (SFI) scores (-68.2 ± 9.2 vs -72.5 ± 8.9). Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated conduits increased the ratio of gastrocnemius muscle weights (RGMW) (7-10% improvement), myelinated fibers (1,605 ± 806.2 vs 543.6 ± 478.66), and myelin thickness (5-20% increase). Repairing transected rat facial nerves with SVF-coated conduits improved whisker motion (9.22° ± 0.65° vs 1.90° ± 0.84°) and myelin thickness (0.57 μm ± 0.17 vs 0.45 μm ± 0.14 μm). Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated nerve allografts improved RGMW (85 vs 50%), SFI scores (-20 to -10 vs -40 to -30), and Basso, Beatie, and Bresnahan locomotor scores (18 vs 15). All metrics mentioned above were statistically significant. The human studies were level 4 evidence due to being case series, while animal studies were the lowest level of evidence.
CONCLUSION: Despite initial promising results, the low-level evidence from the included studies warrants further investigation.