RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Autologous fat transfer (AFT) has been proposed as a possible treatment for scar tissue and its associated symptoms. Its effectiveness's evidence is yet unidentified though. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the currently available evidence on the efficacy and safety of autologous fat transfer in treating post-burn and post-traumatic scars using a validated scar measurement tool. METHODS: This study performed a systematic literature review in November 2023 using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), PUBMED, and Google Scholar. The following key terms were included: (Fat grafting OR Autologous fat transfer) AND (body scars OR body burns OR body wounds) AND (Efficacy OR Safety OR satisfaction). We evaluated articles according to predefined quality criteria. The following data were included during the extraction period: patient demographics, indications for AFT, the number of AFT sessions, follow-up periods, and changes in the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) scores, which contain both the patient and observer components. RESULTS: This study included 1326 patients and 23 published articles. A total of 14 prospective studies, 7 retrospective studies, and 2 Randomized clinical trials studies were evaluated. These 23 articles came from diverse global locations; the earliest was published in 1992, and the most recently published in 2022. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated significant enhancements in scar characteristics from both patient and observer perspectives. Overall, AFT holds promise as a valuable treatment option for scar-related conditions as it enhances scar quality ,contributing to improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to perform coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone or in combination with mitral valve repair is a common dilemma encountered by surgeons when treating patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation, a common condition related to coronary artery disease. Although ischemic mitral regurgitation after CABG has been linked to unfavorable results, the benefits of including mitral valve repair are still unknown. This discrepancy led us to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether combining CABG with mitral valve surgery leads to better clinical results than CABG alone. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies comparing the results of CABG versus CABG with mitral valve replacement were searched in the databases of PubMed and Google Scholar. There were six randomized clinical trials included in this study. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We analyzed 852 patients' data. There were no significant variations between patients who acquired CABG alone or CABG+(MVR) in terms of their risk of death at one year, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or hospitalization for heart failure. For recurrent/residual mitral regurgitation; it revealed an RR=5.42, 95% CI, 0.77 to 37.98, and a P-value of =0.065. According to the analysis of study heterogeneity, no apparent heterogeneity was identified in the outcomes of death after one year, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or hospitalization for heart failure. However, the outcome of recurrent or residual mitral regurgitation showed significant variation (I2=66%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent CABG alone versus CABG plus MVR did not differ significantly from one another. However, the comparison of CABG alone with CABG plus MVR underlines the need for customized treatment plans based on the unique characteristics of each patient.
