BACKGROUND: Mononuclear cells contain progenitor cells including haematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells, endothelial progenitor cells and fibroblasts which facilitate wound healing through cytokines, growth factor secretions, cell-cell interactions and provision of extracellular matrix scaffolding. Clinical applications of autologous mononuclear cells therapy in wound healing in non-malignant patients with critical limb ischaemia have been reported with remarkable outcome.
METHODS: We report three patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy, who received autologous mononuclear cells implantation to treat non-healing wound after optimum conventional wound care. The sources of mononuclear cells (MNC) were from bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood (PB) and mobilised PB cells (mPB-MNC) using granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The cells were directly implanted into wound and below epidermis. Wound sizes and adverse effects from implantation were assessed at regular intervals.
RESULTS: All patients achieved wound healing within three months following autologous mononuclear cells implantation. No implantation adverse effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous mononuclear cells therapy is a feasible alternative to conventional wound care to promote complete healing in non-healing wounds compounded by morbid factors such as haematological malignancies, chemotherapy, diabetes mellitus (DM), infections and prolonged immobility.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this fourth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 30 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham-EMT or other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were employed. At least two review authors independently scrutinised search results and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies for further assessment. We extracted and summarised details of eligible studies using a data extraction sheet, and made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction, and we resolved disagreements after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of low or unclear risk of bias, involving 94 people, were included in the original review; subsequent updates have identified no new trials. All the trials compared the use of EMT with sham-EMT. Meta-analysis of these trials was not possible due to heterogeneity. In the two trials that reported healing rates; one small trial (44 participants) reported that significantly more ulcers healed in the EMT group than the sham-EMT group however this result was not robust to different assumptions about the outcomes of participants who were lost to follow up. The second trial that reported numbers of ulcers healed found no significant difference in healing. The third trial was also small (31 participants) and reported significantly greater reductions in ulcer size in the EMT group however this result may have been influenced by differences in the prognostic profiles of the treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether electromagnetic therapy influences the rate of healing of venous leg ulcers. Further research would be needed to answer this question.