Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsRetrospective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Low-Energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Various Conditions of Deep Dermal and Subdermal Fibrosis

Ko J., Cho SB.

Retrospective Study on Scar, published in Skin Res Technol (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Retrospective Study
Journal
Skin Res Technol (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39366905
PMCID
PMC11452247
DOI
10.1111/srt.70082
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Background Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) enhances extracellular matrix remodeling and tissue regeneration by promoting growth factor release, regulating blood and lymphatic flows, and reducing fat and fibrotic tissues. Focused shock wave therapy (F-SWT), radial shock wave therapy (R-SWT), and combined F-SWT and R-SWT have been used to deliver different patterns of shock energy depending on the characteristics of the target lesions. Methods We investigated the efficacy and safety of ESWT in patients with dermal and subdermal fibrosis. Fifty-two patients treated with F-SWT and/or R-SWT for dermal and subdermal fibrosis caused due to various reasons were retrospectively analyzed by reviewing their medical records, clinical images, and ultrasound study images. Results The mean number of pulses administered for F-SWT on the cheek, temple, and chin were 2600.0 ± 1040.8 shocks/session and for R-SWT were 5080.0 ± 2234.6 pulses/session, and the number of treatment sessions were 8.0 ± 4.4. In patients who were treated with ESWT on the abdomen, the mean number of pulses for F-SWT were 2600.0 ± 2408.3 shocks/session and for R-SWT were 8400.0 ± 894.4 pulses/session, and the number of treatment sessions were 3.2 ± 1.6. Most patients were satisfied with the results. Pain during ESWT was well tolerated and post-ESWT edema was more common in R-SWT than in F-SWT. Conclusion Our data d

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
SkinHumansSkin DiseasesFibrosisTreatment OutcomeRetrospective StudiesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overMiddle Aged

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research