4.7 Review

Local Treatment of Burns with Cell-Based Therapies Tested in Clinical Studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10030396

关键词

burns; radiation burns; keratinocytes; fibroblasts; mesenchymal stem cells; adipose tissue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on local treatment of burn wounds, focusing on the use of cellular therapies in clinical studies, particularly on keratinocytes and fibroblasts. Promising data demonstrate the effectiveness of various cell-based therapies, but further evidence is required to demonstrate their clinical efficacy and safety in burns.
Effective wound management is an important determinant of the survival and prognosis of patients with severe burns. Thus, novel techniques for timely and full closure of full-thickness burn wounds are urgently needed. The purpose of this review is to present the current state of knowledge on the local treatment of burn wounds (distinguishing radiation injury from other types of burns) with the application of cellular therapies conducted in clinical studies. PubMed search engine and ClinicalTrials.gov were used to analyze the available data. The analysis covered 49 articles, assessing the use of keratinocytes (30), keratinocytes and fibroblasts (6), fibroblasts (2), bone marrow-derived cells (8), and adipose tissue cells (3). Studies on the cell-based products that are commercially available (Epicel(R), Keraheal (TM), ReCell(R), JACE, Biobrane(R)) were also included, with the majority of reports found on autologous and allogeneic keratinocytes. Promising data demonstrate the effectiveness of various cell-based therapies; however, there are still scientific and technical issues that need to be solved before cell therapies become standard of care. Further evidence is required to demonstrate the clinical efficacy and safety of cell-based therapies in burns. In particular, comparative studies with long-term follow-up are critical.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据