Kumar Vinay V, Rometsch Elke, Thor Andreas, Wolvius Eppo, Hurtado-Chong Anahí
Plastic and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
AOCID, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2020 Dec;13(4):267-284. doi: 10.1177/1943387520917511. Epub 2020 Apr 8.
The aim of the systematic review was to analyze the current clinical evidence concerning the use of tissue engineering as a treatment strategy for reconstruction of segmental defects of the mandible and their clinical outcomes using individual patient data.
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library on May 21, 2019. The eligibility criteria included patients in whom segmental mandibular reconstruction was carried out using tissue engineering as the primary treatment strategy. After screening and checking for eligibility, individual patient data were extracted to the extent it was available. Data extraction included the type of tissue engineering strategy, demographics, and indication for treatment, and outcomes included clinical and radiographic outcome measures, vitality of engineered bone, dental rehabilitation, and patient-reported outcome measures and complications.
Out of a total of 408 articles identified, 44 articles reporting on 285 patients were included, of which 179 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The different tissue engineering treatment strategies could be broadly classified into 5 groups: "prefabrication," "cell culture," "bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) without autografts," "BMP with autografts," and "scaffolds containing autografts." Most included studies were case reports or case series. A wide variety of components were used as scaffolds, cells, and biological substances. There was not a single outcome measure that was both objective and consistently reported, although most studies reported successful outcome.
A wide variety of tissue engineering strategies were used for segmental mandibular reconstruction that could be classified into 5 groups. Due to the low number of treated patients, lack of standardized and consistent reporting outcomes, lack of comparative studies, and low evidence of reported literature, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular tissue engineering strategy.
本系统评价的目的是分析目前关于使用组织工程作为下颌骨节段性缺损重建治疗策略及其临床结局的临床证据,并采用个体患者数据进行分析。
2019年5月21日,使用PubMed和Cochrane图书馆对文献进行了系统评价。纳入标准包括以组织工程作为主要治疗策略进行下颌骨节段性重建的患者。在筛选并检查合格性后,尽可能提取个体患者数据。数据提取包括组织工程策略类型、人口统计学资料、治疗指征,结局包括临床和影像学结局指标、工程化骨的活力、牙齿修复、患者报告的结局指标以及并发症。
在总共识别出的408篇文章中,纳入了44篇报告285例患者的文章,其中179例患者符合纳入标准。不同的组织工程治疗策略大致可分为5组:“预成术”“细胞培养”“无自体骨的骨形态发生蛋白(BMP)”“有自体骨的BMP”以及“含自体骨的支架”。大多数纳入研究为病例报告或病例系列。各种各样的成分被用作支架、细胞和生物物质。虽然大多数研究报告了成功的结局,但没有一个单一的结局指标是客观且一致报告的。
多种组织工程策略被用于下颌骨节段性重建,可分为5组。由于治疗患者数量少、缺乏标准化和一致的报告结局、缺乏对照研究以及报告文献的证据水平低,因此没有足够的证据推荐任何特定的组织工程策略。