Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Locoregional Treatments for Digital Ulcers in Systemic Sclerosis: A Systematic Review

Costedoat I., Masson M., Barnetche T., Duffau P., Lazaro E., Richez C.

Systematic Review on Systemic / IV, published in Acta Derm Venereol (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • 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
Systematic Review
Journal
Acta Derm Venereol (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34043013
PMCID
PMC9380280
DOI
10.2340/00015555-3839
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

The management of digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis is difficult. While the 2017 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines clearly defined the use of systemic therapies for digital ulcers, little is known about the efficacy of locoregional treatments. The aim of this review is to systematically assess the spectrum of published locoregional therapies for digital ulcers. A total of 58 studies were included. Among the different locoregional treatment strategies described, injections of fat-derived cells and botulinum toxin showed promising results in the reduction of pain and the number of digital ulcers. By contrast, this review found that sympathectomy yielded disappointing results, with low rates of effectiveness and frequent recurrence. For other treatments, such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy, phototherapy (ultraviolet A), low-level light therapy, intermittent compression, Waon therapy, extracorporeal shockwave, vitamin E gel, and topical dimethyl sulphoxide, the conflicting results or limited published data reflected the low level of evidence. Larger randomized clinical trials are required to confirm the validity of promising techniques.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
HumansPainScleroderma, SystemicSkin UlcerUlcer

Browse all related research

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

Related research