SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “autologous”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

Autologous Fibrin Glue in Pterygium Surgery as an Alternative to Commercial Fibrin Glue.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of autologous fibrin glue in pterygium surgery, comparing it with commercial fibrin glue in terms of postoperative complications, graft stability, and recurrence rate. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted, involving 42 patients with primary pterygium who underwent autologous conjunctival-limbal transplantation. The graft was fixed using autologous fibrin glue (Group 1, G1) or commercial fibrin glue (Group 2, G2). All patients underwent surgery performed by the same surgeon and were reevaluated on postoperative days 7, 30, 90, and 180 by an independent observer, assessing clinical parameters in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. RESULTS: No cases of severe adverse events were reported. Complete graft dehiscence occurred in 1 patient from G1. The G2 group had more cases of subconjunctival hemorrhage ( P = 0.0355). Pyogenic granuloma was observed in 1 patient from G2 and 2 patients from G1. There was no significant difference in recurrence rates between the groups (15% in G1 vs. 5% in G2; P = 0.2918). In both groups, graft dimensions tended to decrease slightly in the early postoperative period, followed by stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous fibrin glue demonstrated efficacy and safety comparable to commercial fibrin glue, making it a viable alternative to conjunctival graft fixation in primary pterygium surgery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Versus Prosthetic Grafts in the Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) present a severe risk of progression to acute limb ischemia. Open surgery (OS) is the gold standard treatment; however, prosthetic grafts are acceptable in highly selected cases, especially when the great saphenous vein is not available. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing autologous versus prosthetic grafts for patency and limb preservation outcomes in patients with PAAs. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were systematically searched from inception through October 2024. Outcomes were pooled using a frequentist random-effects model as odds ratios, mean differences, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on RStudio (Version 4.5.0). Risk-of-bias assessments were performed using ROBINS-I and MINORS. RESULTS: Twenty-two observational studies were pooled comprising 9,145 PAAs in 8,370 patients, of whom 6,434 (74.51%) were treated with autologous grafts and 2,200 (25.49%) with prosthetic grafts. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 86 months. Repair with autologous conduits significantly improved long-term primary patency (HR 3.93; P < 0.001), secondary patency (HR 6.02; P < 0.001), and long-term limb salvage (HR 2.69; P = 0.044) compared with prosthetic conduits. There were no significant differences in in-hospital amputation (P = 0.36), myocardial infarction (P = 0.61), mortality (P = 0.50), 2-year primary patency (P = 0.25), 5-year secondary patency (P = 0.06), or length of hospital stay (P = 0.95). Risk of bias was classified as moderate-to-high, reflecting confounding factors inherent to observational studies and moderate methodological quality by MINORS. Despite these limitations, treatment effects consistently favored autologous grafts in both short- and long-term analyses; however, caution is warranted given the limited number of available studies. CONCLUSION: The use of autologous conduits significantly favors both short-term and long-term efficacy and safety in the OS repair of PAAs. Given the limitations of the existing evidence, further comparative studies are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Skin cell suspension autograft as an evidence-based innovation in burn and wound treatment: A systematic review of global evidence across two decades.

BACKGROUND: Skin cell suspension autograft (SCSA) is a point-of-care approach to wound management facilitating epithelialization while reducing burden associated with conventional autografting. Despite growing clinical use of SCSA across diverse wound etiologies, the global clinical evidence describing its use has not yet been comprehensively synthesized. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies between January 2000 and December 2024 reporting clinical use of SCSA for wound closure. Data on patient demographics, wound characteristics, and treatment methods were extracted. Clinical, safety, and health economic outcomes were extracted for comparative studies evaluating SCSA against control treatments. RESULTS: Ninety-nine studies across 13 countries were included. Across the overall dataset, SCSA was used alone or in combination with autografting for burns, surgical wounds, traumatic injuries, inflammatory conditions, and chronic wounds. Among comparative studies (n=27), SCSA consistently reduced donor skin, and healing outcomes favored SCSA in 61%, while 39% reported equivalent outcomes. Pain and esthetic outcomes more frequently favored SCSA, while safety outcomes were generally similar, with some studies favoring comparators. Health-economic outcomes suggested potential reductions in length of stay and resource utilization, although findings were variable across studies. CONCLUSION: The available global evidence supports SCSA as a versatile modality for supporting epidermal coverage across wound types and clinical contexts. However, the findings should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of this review, which include heterogenous study designs, variable outcome reporting, predominance of non-randomized data, and the absence of a formal quantitative analysis. Nevertheless, the demonstrated clinical and economic benefits in comparative studies reinforce the role of SCSA as an evidence-based innovation for burn and wound treatment.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The Potential Role of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Clinical Trials.

Despite currently available treatment options for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), some patients fail to achieve adequate disease control. Emerging evidence suggests that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may represent a promising therapeutic option. This systematic review and meta-analysis included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized clinical trial. Eligible studies evaluated patients with moderate-to-severe AD treated with MSCs derived from human umbilical cord blood, autologous adipose tissue, and allogeneic bone marrow. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to December 2025. Primary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% and ≥75% improvement from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and safety outcomes. The meta-analysis included 236 participants. The pooled EASI-50 response rate at week 12 was 46.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.36% to 61.72%). EASI-75 response rates were 17.41% (95% CI: 5.56% to 43.03%) at week 12 and 23.97% (95% CI: 16.48% to 33.50%) at week 16. The pooled incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 26.86% (95% CI: 19.56% to 35.68%), with infections and infestations 7.97% (95% CI: 4.11% to 14.88%) and gastrointestinal disorders 3.52% (95% CI: 1.33% to 9.01%) being the most frequently reported. MSC-based therapy shows early promise as a potential treatment for moderate-to-severe AD, offering a possible alternative to traditional therapies. However, the current evidence is largely based on small clinical trials, underscoring the necessity for large-scale RCTs to establish the efficacy and safety of MSC-based therapy in broader patient populations.

Humans↗