Mariana Rodrigues da Silva, Renato Andrade, Fatima S Cardoso, Sofia Oliveira, Susana O Catarino, Óscar Carvalho, Filipe S Silva, João Espregueira-Mendes, Paulo Flores
{"title":"Light stimulation on tenocytes: A systematic review of in vitro studies.","authors":"Mariana Rodrigues da Silva, Renato Andrade, Fatima S Cardoso, Sofia Oliveira, Susana O Catarino, Óscar Carvalho, Filipe S Silva, João Espregueira-Mendes, Paulo Flores","doi":"10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the methodologies, utilized stimulation parameters, and the main cellular outcomes obtained by in vitro studies that apply a light source on tenocyte cultures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to December 9, 2019 for in vitro studies that used light sources on tenocyte cultures. A 13-item checklist was used to assess methodological quality of the studies and the risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies were included. Tenocytes from the Achilles tendon were used by 83.3% of the studies, with 16.7% utilizing the deep digital flexor tendon, with cells in passage 2 to 5. Four studies used lasers and the other 2 used light-emitting diode or intense pulsed light, in wavelengths ranges from 530 to 1100 nm. The application of light to tenocytes resulted in positive effects reported by all studies, including an increase in cell proliferation and migration, and higher protein and gene expression of tendon biomarkers. Studies presented a lack of standardization on reporting light stimulation parameters and experimental methodologies, leading to low methodological quality. There was a high risk of selection, performance, detection, and reporting bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All studies showed positive effects after light stimulation on tenocytes, regardless of the light source used. However, the lack of standardized data on light stimulation parameters, experimental setup, and the studies' main limitations hindered representative conclusions and comparisons amongst studies' main outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":74479,"journal":{"name":"Porto biomedical journal","volume":" ","pages":"e176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9521787/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Porto biomedical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the methodologies, utilized stimulation parameters, and the main cellular outcomes obtained by in vitro studies that apply a light source on tenocyte cultures.
Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to December 9, 2019 for in vitro studies that used light sources on tenocyte cultures. A 13-item checklist was used to assess methodological quality of the studies and the risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies tool.
Results: Six studies were included. Tenocytes from the Achilles tendon were used by 83.3% of the studies, with 16.7% utilizing the deep digital flexor tendon, with cells in passage 2 to 5. Four studies used lasers and the other 2 used light-emitting diode or intense pulsed light, in wavelengths ranges from 530 to 1100 nm. The application of light to tenocytes resulted in positive effects reported by all studies, including an increase in cell proliferation and migration, and higher protein and gene expression of tendon biomarkers. Studies presented a lack of standardization on reporting light stimulation parameters and experimental methodologies, leading to low methodological quality. There was a high risk of selection, performance, detection, and reporting bias.
Conclusions: All studies showed positive effects after light stimulation on tenocytes, regardless of the light source used. However, the lack of standardized data on light stimulation parameters, experimental setup, and the studies' main limitations hindered representative conclusions and comparisons amongst studies' main outcomes.
本系统综述的目的是分析方法,利用刺激参数,以及通过体外研究获得的主要细胞结果,这些研究将光源应用于小细胞培养。方法:截至2019年12月9日,检索PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库,查找使用光源进行细胞培养的体外研究。使用13项检查表评估研究的方法学质量,并使用非随机研究的偏倚风险评估工具评估偏倚风险。结果:纳入6项研究。83.3%的研究使用了来自跟腱的小细胞,16.7%的研究使用了指深屈肌腱,细胞位于传代2至5。四项研究使用激光,另外两项使用发光二极管或强脉冲光,波长范围从530到1100纳米。所有研究都报告了光对肌腱细胞的积极影响,包括细胞增殖和迁移的增加,以及肌腱生物标志物的蛋白质和基因表达的增加。研究表明,报告光刺激参数和实验方法缺乏标准化,导致方法质量低。选择、表现、检测和报告偏倚的风险很高。结论:所有研究均显示,无论使用何种光源,光刺激对细胞均有积极作用。然而,由于缺乏光刺激参数、实验设置和研究的主要局限性等方面的标准化数据,阻碍了具有代表性的结论和研究主要结果之间的比较。