4.5 Review

Omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of spinal cord injury: untapped potential for therapeutic intervention?

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 10797-10809

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-022-07762-x

关键词

Omega-3 fatty acids; Spinal cord injury; Polyunsaturated fatty acids; Neuroprotection; Inflammation; Diet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates potential reasons for the oversight of omega-3 fatty acid therapy in the treatment and prevention of spinal cord injury. The current research results are inconclusive, but not fully utilizing the potential properties of omega-3 fatty acids due to methodological difficulties might be a potential waste.
Omega-3 fatty acids constitute a group of fatty acids with anti-inflammatory and preventive effects against various diseases. Studies in animal models have demonstrated the preventive and therapeutic effects of omega-3 fatty acids after spinal cord injury (SCI) in reducing inflammatory reactions and promoting neuroregeneration. However, studies on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids in treatment and prevention after SCI seem to be questionable. This study evaluates potential reasons for omega-3 fatty acid therapy oversight in populations after SCI. Therefore, some of the reasons could cover heterogeneous patient groups in size, level of injury, quality of life assessment, time since injury, no single standardised dose, various follow-up durations and metabolic changes, often insufficient to record. Due to the difficulty of collecting cases for the study, especially in the acute phase after SCI, multicenter, coordinated studies are needed to establish the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on treatment, recovery, and disease prevention in patients after SCI. Although the present results of such studies are still inconclusive, the failure to exploit the potential properties of omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of patients with SCI solely due to methodological difficulties should be considered a potential waste.

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

4.5
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