A systematic review of the efficacy, safety and satisfaction of regenerative medicine treatments, including platelet-rich plasma, stromal vascular fraction and stem cell-conditioned medium for hypertrophic scars and kelo

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

Abstract (original English)

The primary objective of this study is to examine the efficiency of various regenerative medicine approaches, such as platelet-rich plasma, cell therapy, stromal vascular fraction, exosomes and stem cell-conditioned medium, in the process of healing hypertrophic and keloid scars. Major databases including PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched, and based on the content of the articles and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight articles were selected. Out of these eight articles, there were two non-randomized clinical trial studies (25%), one randomized, single-blinded comparative study (12.5%), one retrospective clinical observational study (12.5%) and four randomized clinical trial studies (50%). We employed EndNote X8 and Google Sheets to conduct article reviews and extract relevant data. Following the review phase, the studies underwent analysis and categorization. In all eight reviewed studies, the effectiveness of regenerative medicine in treating hypertrophic scars and keloids has been proven. Out of these studies, five (62.5%) focused on the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma, two study (25%) examined the effectiveness of stromal vascular fraction and one study (12.5%) explored the efficacy of stem cell-conditioned medium. In two studies (25%), the treatment methods were added to standard treatment, while in six studies (75%), regenerative

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.

Browse all related research

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