MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7120661997

Laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars Systematic review

2018· article· pt· W7120661997 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafael [UNIFESP] Leszczynski

Notice bibliographique

RevueUNIFESP Institutional Repository (Universidade Federal de São Paulo) · 2018
Typearticle
Languept
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDermatologic Treatments and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHypertrophic scarsKeloidHypertrophic scarCINAHLScarsClinical trialDermabrasionSystematic review
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Keloids and hypertrophic scars are common conditions resulting from an abnormal cutaneous healing process that can affect any skin area subjected to trauma or infection, especially regions of higher stretching tension. They appear as firm elevated scars, often with erythematous or hyperchromic coloring. In addition to being unsightly, the scars may present pruritus and pain, in some cases leading to negative physical and psychological impact on patients’ lives. Unlike hypertrophic scars, which remain confined within the boundaries of the original injury, keloid tissue extends beyond the limits the original scar. Despite the many therapeutic alternatives, treatment of these scars still presents challenges, and there is no gold standard therapy. Among proposed treatments, laser therapy is one of the most recent. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. Methods: systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of lasers for the treatment of hypertrophic and keloid scars. A search of the following electronic databases was conducted up to May 2018: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, LILACS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform eclinicaltrials.gov. A manual search of the list of references from relevant studies and from the annals of conferences was also performed; specialists in the area were contacted to locate studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data considered relevant. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were added to this systematic review, with a total of 466 participants (children and adults of both sexes) and 733 scar segments (analysis units) evaluated. The duration of the studies ranged from 12 weeks to 24 months. The quality of the available evidence was considered low or very low, and the heterogeneity of interventions, control and evaluation parameters made it difficult to perform metaanalyses. The keloid and hypertrophic scar segments treated with a 585nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) showed greater improvement in severity, according to evaluation of nonblinded participants, compared to the untreated segments, (RR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.46, 2 studies, 60 scar segments, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%). The fractional CO2 laser, according to the Vancouver burn scale (VBS), showed an improvement in keloid severity when compared to no treatment (MD 1.90, 95% CI: 3.02 to 0.78, one study, 36 scar segments, P <0.001), however the same did not occur with hypertrophic scars (MD 1.30, 95% CI: 4.32 to 1.71, 2 studies, 104 scar segments, P = 0.40, I2 = 84%). For nonablative fractional lasers, the available studies showed conflicting results, regarding the improvement of the scars, when evaluated by blinded observers and unblinded participants, and it was not possible to prove their superiority over no treatment. There are data supporting that the 585nm PDL and the Erbium laser can have superior results to intralesional trancinolone acetonide (TAC) in the treatment of hypertrophic scars (MD: 2.50, 95% CI: 3.20 to 1, 80, 1 study, 80 participants, 80 scars for PDL versus TAC and MD: 2.10; 95% CI: 2.87, 1.33 1 study, 80 participants, 80 scars for the Erbium laser versus TAC), according to evaluations of blinded observers. Comparing laser plus another treatment versus another treatment (585 nm PDL + TAC + 5fluorouracil versus TAC + 5FU, CO2 laser + TAC versus Cryosurgery + TAC, and 1064nm Nd:YAG laser + betamethasone preparation + 5FU versus betamethasone preparation + 5FU) analysis of available data did not show significant difference in scar improvement, between areas treated or not with laser. The reported side effects in the laser treated areas were erythema, purpura, edema, pain, blisters, erosions and crusts. No permanent sequelae were reported. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effictiveness of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars, since the quality of the available evidence is low or very low. Due to the lack of blinding, heterogeneity, small number of studies and the small sample sizes, more trials are needed to determine the effects of lasers in the treatment of hypertrophic and keloid scars.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,117
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,284
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUNIFESP Institutional Repository (Universidade Federal de São Paulo)Même sujetDermatologic Treatments and ResearchTravaux en français237 207