Reconstructive Paradigms: A Problem-Solving Approach in Complex Tissue Defects
Grosu-Bularda A., Hodea FV., Cretu A., Lita FF., Bordeanu-Diaconescu EM., Vancea CV.
Narrative Review, published in J Clin Med (2024) — 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 Clin Med (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38541953
- PMCID
- PMC10971357
- DOI
- 10.3390/jcm13061728
- Citations
- 10
Abstract (original English)
The field of plastic surgery is continuously evolving, with faster-emerging technologies and therapeutic approaches, leading to the necessity of establishing novel protocols and solving models. Surgical decision-making in reconstructive surgery is significantly impacted by various factors, including the etiopathology of the defect, the need to restore form and function, the patient's characteristics, compliance and expectations, and the surgeon's expertise. A broad surgical armamentarium is currently available, comprising well-established surgical procedures, as well as emerging techniques and technologies. Reconstructive surgery paradigms guide therapeutic strategies in order to reduce morbidity, mortality and risks while maximizing safety, patient satisfaction and properly restoring form and function. The paradigms provide researchers with formulation and solving models for each unique problem, assembling complex entities composed of theoretical, practical, methodological and instrumental elements.
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.