Perspectives of Autologous Mesenchymal Stem-Cell Transplantation in Macular Hole Surgery: A Review of Current Findings
Nuzzi R., Tridico F.
Narrative Review, published in J Ophthalmol (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- J Ophthalmol (2019)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 30918717
- PMCID
- PMC6409040
- DOI
- 10.1155/2019/3162478
- Citations
- 14
Abstract (original English)
The main treatment available for idiopathic macular holes is represented by pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling. However, late-stage macular holes are affected by a higher risk of surgical failure. Although adjuvant techniques can be employed, a satisfactory functional recovery is difficult to achieve in refractory macular holes. Given their neuroprotective and antiapoptotic properties, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may represent an appealing approach to treat these extreme cases. The purpose of this review is to highlight the findings regarding healing mechanisms exerted by mesenchymal stem cells and preliminary application in cases of refractory macular holes. When compared with MSCs, MSC-derived exosomes may represent a feasible alternative, given their reduced risk of undesired proliferation and easiness of use.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.