A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Following Surgical and Non-surgical Treatments for Hair Loss.

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to examine surgical and non-surgical treatments and identify those procedures that are most effective in terms of patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review protocol was developed a priori in accordance with the Preferred Reporting for Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the Cochrane handbook. A multistep search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PreMEDLINE, Ebase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies on hair loss causes and hair loss treatment with different surgical and non-surgical techniques RESULTS: Our search generated a total of 781 articles; 646 studies were excluded based on the content of the abstracts, and an additional 105 studies were excluded based on the content of the complete article. We performed a review of the 30 remaining studies, which had sufficient data for inclusion, and met all the aforementioned inclusion criteria. Of the 30 studies, four were about minoxidil, four about finasteride, two about dutasteride, three about phototherapy, six about platelet-rich plasma injection, four about follicular unit transplantation technique, six about follicular unit extraction technique, and one about patient satisfaction following surgical treatment without a specified surgical technique. Only three studies used a patient-reported outcome measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first comprehensive systematic review of hair loss, looking at the problem from different points of view, and focusing on finding the best solution for the patient. In the literature, there is currently no algorithm for the management of patients who go to a plastic surgeon for a solution to the problem of hair loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.