SynthesisAesthetic surgery journal2026
Human Placental Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes in Wound Healing and Scar Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Human Placental Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes in Wound Healing and Scar Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Pooled it
- Innovative Pathways in Burn Treatment: Exosomes and the New Era of Regenerative Medicine.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Exosome therapy represents an emerging regenerative medicine approach for optimizing wound healing and reducing scarring. Extensive pre-clinical research on human placental mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes (hpMSC-exosomes) demonstrates significant therapeutic potential in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery applications. Despite compelling preclinical evidence supporting the efficacy of exosomes in wound healing, human clinical studies remain scarce. The author's current study includes 738 patients treated with hpMSC-exosomes over a 7-year period across multiple aesthetic and reconstructive indications, with 175 cases involving wound healing and 118 cases involving scar therapy. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to comprehensively evaluate the current evidence for hpMSC-exosomes in wound healing and scar therapy, analyzing their mechanisms of action, clinical applications, and safety profiles through a review of preclinical studies, safety data, and clinical case series in both animals and humans. Analysis of the author's series will be included. Information sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov resulting in a meta-analysis of 21 global preclinical studies (323 animals) which demonstrated superior outcomes compared with controls across multiple parameters: wound healing rate, neovascular density, re-epithelialization rate, and collagen deposition. hpMSC-exosomes demonstrated accelerated wound healing through enhanced angiogenesis, reduced inflammation, improved collagen production, and immunomodulatory effects. Most studies utilized rodent models, with limited translation to human trials. Current human evidence is predominantly based on early-phase trials, case series, and observational studies. Large-scale, well-designed clinical trials are essential to advancing exosome therapy in wound healing and scar management. hp-MSC-exosomes represent a promising therapeutic modality for wound healing and scar therapy with demonstrated safety and efficacy. Standardization of manufacturing processes and FDA approval remain critical for widespread clinical implementation. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic).
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.