ArticleRegenerative therapy2021
Treatment of giant congenital melanocytic nevi with cultured epithelial autografts: Clinical and histopathological analysis.
Article in Regenerative therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updates in the Management of Congenital Melanocytic Nevi.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Cellular Therapeutics for Chronic Wound Healing: Future for Regenerative Medicine.Current drug targets · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurettage and dermabrasion are effective in the treatment of giant congenital melanocytic nevi (GCMN); however, local infection and hypertrophic scar formation are major issues. Thus, we applied cultured epithelial autografts (CEA) on skin defects after curettage or abrasion of GCMN and assessed the postoperative outcomes.
methodsSeven nevi lesions of five patients (aged 3 months to 24 years) were treated with CEA after curettage or abrasion with a dermatome or a surgical bar, respectively. We assessed the postoperative outcomes, including CEA take ratio, erosion and/or ulcer formation in the acute phase, hospitalization days, Vancouver scar scale, and color improvement one year after the operation. In addition, a histological evaluation of a skin biopsy was performed over one year after the operation.
resultsThe CEAs took well on the wound, and the wound surface was mostly epithelized by postoperative day 7 in all cases. While hypertrophic scar formation and slight pigmentation were observed in some lesions, the color was improved in all of the treated lesions. Histopathological examination revealed that the regenerated epidermis had stratified keratinocytes with rete ridges, and the dermal layer without nevus cells regenerated above the remaining dermis layer.
conclusionsIn this study, we found that early epithelialization and regeneration of the dermal layer was achieved after the application of CEA, suggesting that CEA could be an effective option after curettage or abrasion of GCMN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.