Rahman Eqram, Carruthers Jean D A, Rao Parinitha, Abu-Farsakh Hany Niamey, Garcia Patricia E, Ioannidis Sotirios, Sayed Karim, Philipp-Dormston Wolfgang G, Mosahebi Ash, Webb William Richard
Research and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Jan;49(1):341-355. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04287-5. Epub 2024 Aug 28.
Regenerative aesthetics claims to enhance cosmetic outcomes through advanced biological interventions like Stem cell and Exosome therapy, Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN), Photobiomodulation, bioactive peptides and treatment for cellular senescence yet lacks substantial scientific and regulatory validation.
To evaluate the scientific and clinical foundations of regenerative medicine techniques in non-surgical aesthetics and assess the legitimacy of regenerative aesthetics as a medical specialty.
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, searching databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published in the last ten years. We included 19 studies, comprising 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 prospective studies, focusing on interventions that purportedly use regenerative medicine principles in aesthetic applications.
The review highlights a prevalent gap in molecular and clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of regenerative aesthetics. Despite the robust design of the included RCTs and prospective studies, there remains a significant lack of consistent, high-quality evidence proving the effectiveness of these interventions. Issues such as inadequate reporting, unclear molecular mechanisms, and absence of long-term safety data were common.
The field of regenerative aesthetics lacks the necessary scientific rigour and regulatory compliance to be recognized as a legitimate medical specialty. This review underscores the need for stringent scientific validation and regulatory oversight to ensure patient safety and treatment efficacy before these techniques can be recommended for clinical use.
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 .
再生美学声称可通过先进的生物干预措施（如干细胞和外泌体疗法、聚脱氧核糖核苷酸（PDRN）、光生物调节、生物活性肽以及细胞衰老治疗）来改善美容效果，但缺乏充分的科学和监管验证。
评估再生医学技术在非手术美学中的科学和临床基础，并评估再生美学作为一个医学专业的合理性。
根据PRISMA指南进行系统综述，检索包括PubMed、Scopus和科学网在内的数据库，查找过去十年发表的研究。我们纳入了19项研究，包括14项随机对照试验（RCT）和5项前瞻性研究，重点关注据称在美学应用中使用再生医学原理的干预措施。
该综述突出了支持再生美学有效性和安全性的分子和临床证据方面普遍存在的差距。尽管纳入的RCT和前瞻性研究设计严谨，但仍然严重缺乏一致的、高质量的证据来证明这些干预措施的有效性。报告不充分、分子机制不明确以及缺乏长期安全性数据等问题很常见。
再生美学领域缺乏必要的科学严谨性和监管合规性，无法被认可为一个合法的医学专业。本综述强调，在推荐这些技术用于临床之前，需要进行严格的科学验证和监管监督，以确保患者安全和治疗效果。
证据级别II：本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据级别。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或作者在线指南www.springer.com/00266 。
