Dataset Information

The effects of oestrogen on vaginal wound healing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To determine the effects of oestrogen or oestrogen deprivation on vaginal wound healing. Impaired wound healing following prolapse surgery may increase the risk of recurrent prolapse in the future. Vaginal oestrogen therapy may improve wound healing, hereby possibly improving surgical outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search of OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science was conducted up to January 28, 2020. We included original studies comparing wound healing-related outcomes of oestrogen exposed subjects (female animals and women) to hypo-oestrogenic subjects after vaginal surgery. Data on wound healing-related outcome measures were extracted. For each individual comparison, the standardised mean difference (Hedges' g; SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results

Of the 1474 studies reviewed, 14 studies were included for review, and 11 provided data for meta-analysis. Oestrogen improves neovascularisation (SMD: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.67-1.60), microscopic wound closure (SMD: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.66-1.29), collagen synthesis (SMD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.42-1.74), and tissue strength (SMD: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.53-1.99) in animals. Oestrogen increases granulation (SMD: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.54-2.79) and accelerates macroscopic wound closure (SMD: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.22-2.42) in women and animals. Oestrogen decreases the inflammatory response (SMD: -0.58, 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.02) in women and animals and reduces levels of transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1 (SMD: -1.68, 95% CI: -2.52 to -0.83) in animals. All results were statistically significant.

Conclusions

Oestrogen therapy has a positive effect on vaginal wound healing. Future studies should determine whether oestrogen therapy has the potential to improve surgical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Vodegel EV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhotobiomodulation is widely being used to improve the wound healing process in dentistry and a vast majority of studies have proven its benefits. But there are plenty of knowledge gaps according to the optimal laser characteristics which should be used to maximize the healing effects of lasers. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) as an adjunctive treatment to periodontal therapies to evaluate secondary intention gingival wound healing and post-operative pain.MethodsFive databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Sciences) were searched up to November 30, 2020, for clinical trials that reported the result of the application of PBM on secondary gingival healing wounds and post-operative pain and discomfort after periodontal surgeries. Two independent reviewers selected the eligible studies and the outcomes of interest were extracted. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ResultsUltimately, twelve studies were included in this review. The application of PBM as an adjunct to periodontal surgeries resulted in a significant improvement in wound healing indices. The Landry wound healing index at the 7th post-operative day was significantly improved (SMD = 1.044 [95% CI 0.62-1.46]; p < 0.01) in PBM + surgery groups compared to the control groups. There was also a statistically significant increase in the complete wound epithelialization (RR = 3.23 [95% CI 1.66-6.31]; p < 0.01) at the 14th post-operative day compared to the control groups. The methods used to assess the post-operative pain were heterogeneous, and therefore the results were limited which made the meta-analysis for post-operative pain assessment not possible.ConclusionBased on the results of this review, PBM can be effectively used as a method to improve secondary intention wound healing. High-quality randomized clinical trials, however, are needed in the future to identify the optimal PBM irradiation parameters and the effect of PBM on post-operative pain.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic wounds have been a great burden to patients and the health care system. The popularity of the internet and smart devices, such as mobile phones and tablets, has made it possible to adopt telemedicine (TM) to improve the management of chronic wounds. However, studies conducted by different researchers have reported contradictory results on the effect of TM on chronic wound management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TM in chronic wound management. METHODS:We systematically searched multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) to identify eligible studies published from inception to June 12, 2019. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and interventional cohort studies that investigated the use of TM in chronic wound management. RCT and observational data were analyzed separately. A meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted to estimate endpoints. RESULTS:A total of 6 RCTs and 6 cohort studies including 3913 patients were included. Of these, 4 studies used tablets or mobile phones programmed with apps, such as Skype and specialized interactive systems, whereas the remaining 8 studies used email, telephone, and videoconferencing to facilitate the implementation of TM using a specialized system. Efficacy outcomes in RCTs showed no significant differences in wound healing (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.39; P=.13), and wound healing around 1 year (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.89-1.23; P=.15). Noninferiority criteria of TM were met. A decreased risk of amputation in patients receiving TM was revealed (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.71; P=.001). The result of cohort studies showed that TM was more effective than standard care (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.43-2.12; P<.001), whereas the outcome efficacy RR of wound healing around 1 year (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96-1.53; P=.56) and 3 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.47-3.3; P=.67) was not significantly different between TM and standard care. Noninferiority criteria of TM were met for wound healing around 1 year in cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS:Currently available evidence suggests that TM seems to have similar efficacy and safety, and met noninferiority criteria with conventional standard care of chronic wounds. Large-scale, well-designed RCTs are warranted.