Comparison of intralesional verapamil versus intralesional corticosteroids in treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars: A randomized controlled trial

Comparing intralesional triamcinolone and verapamil-triamcinolone injections in keloids: A single-blinded randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

In this clinical trial, we investigated the efficacy of two treatment methods for keloids resulting from surgical incisions: intralesional triamcinolone injections alone versus in combination with verapamil.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups: one received triamcinolone alone (Group T) and the other received a triamcinolone-verapamil blend (Group VT). Regular treatments were conducted until the keloids were nearly flat or for a maximum of eight sessions.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvements, but Group VT saw quicker resolution of skin redness and needed fewer sessions. Though the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores were generally similar across both groups, Group VT exhibited greater improvements, leading to lower final scores. The VT group also attained normal scar flexibility faster than the T group.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the combination of verapamil and triamcinolone provides a more effective treatment for keloids, thereby highlighting the potential of verapamil in scar reduction.

Clinical Features and the Outcome Evaluations of Keloid and Hypertrophic Scar Treatment with Triamcinolone Injection in Mekong Delta, Vietnam - A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Excessive scarring is a common problem that can have significant cosmetic and psychological consequences for patients. Intralesional injection therapy, such as the use of triamcinolone, has emerged as an effective treatment option for hypertrophic scars. The objective of this study was to describe the morphological features of hypertrophic scars, categorize them, and evaluate the efficacy of triamcinolone injection therapy in treating these scars.

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study of 80 patients with hypertrophic scars treated with triamcinolone intralesional injection at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital from 5/2018 to 5/2021.

Results

There were 80 patients in all, with a male/female ratio of 1/1.05 and a median age of 15-35. There were 129 scars in all, with scar age >1 year accounting for 83%, keloid scars accounting for 64%, and hypertrophic scars accounting for the remaining 36%. Scars are most commonly seen on the trunk, accounting for 53.5% of all scars, particularly on the anterior chest wall. When the source of scars was discovered, trauma and acne accounted for 24% and 23%, respectively, while the rest were predominantly spontaneous scars, accounting for 49%. Scarring and discomfort of mild to moderate severity were common clinical symptoms; scars larger than 5cm in size had more symptoms than scars smaller than 5cm. Prior to the therapy, the mean Vancouver Score Scale-VSS was 6.55±2.13. After 24 weeks of the therapy, 96.7% of patients had entirely improved itching symptoms, 75% had completely improved pain, and 25% still had minimal pain. After therapy, the mean Vancouver Score Scale-VSS was 2.55±1.81 (p<0.05). At week 24, 3.75% of patients experienced skin shrinkage, 3.75% experienced depigmentation, and 13.75% experienced vasodilation.

Conclusion

Triamcinolone intralesional injection should be utilized as a first-line therapy for hypertrophic scarring.

Hypertrophic Scar

Hypertrophic scars frequently develop post-burn, and are characterized by their pruritic, painful, raised, erythematous, dyschromic, and contractile qualities. This article aims to synthesize knowledge on the clinical and molecular development, evolution, management, and measurement of hypertrophic burn scar for both patient and clinician knowledge.

Treatment of traumatic hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review of randomized control trials

Exaggerated healing and remodeling after skin injury may cause hypertrophic and keloidal scars, which are associated with functional and quality of life impairment. There is limited guidance available regarding the relative effectiveness of therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of treatments for hypertrophic scars and keloids. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration database were searched from inception to March 2019 for randomized control trials of treatments for hypertrophic and keloid scars that included 20 or more patients. Outcomes evaluated included the standardized mean reduction in scarring and adverse events. The type of scar and the demographic features were analyzed for their effect on clinical outcome. Based on 25 included clinical trials, intralesional injection (64.1% [95% CI 60.8-67.5%]) may be more effective than physical (29.9% [95% CI 28.9-30.9%]) or topical treatments (34% [95% CI 31.8-36.8%]). Combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone (9:1 dilution) appeared superior among intralesional treatments for keloids. Ablative laser and pulsed-dye laser were the most useful laser treatments. Regression modeling showed laser treatment response was linked to Fitzpatrick skin type (p = 0.002). Adverse events were uncommon for all treatments and mostly transient. Intralesional treatments for keloid and hypertrophic scars may be the most reliable treatment option to improve pathologic scars, while laser treatment may have specific benefits for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III over types IV-VI. Management of pathological scars is an area of critical need, where appropriate treatment can have a significant impact on quality of life.

Immune cells and associated molecular markers in dermal fibrosis with focus on raised cutaneous scars

Raised dermal scars including hypertrophic, and keloid scars as well as scalp-associated fibrosing Folliculitis Keloidalis Nuchae (FKN) are a group of fibrotic raised dermal lesions that mostly occur following cutaneous injury. They are characterized by increased extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, primarily excessive collagen type 1 production by hyperproliferative fibroblasts. The extent of ECM deposition is thought to be proportional to the severity of local skin inflammation leading to excessive fibrosis of the dermis. Due to a lack of suitable study models, therapy for raised dermal scars remains ill-defined. Immune cells and their associated markers have been strongly associated with dermal fibrosis. Therefore, modulation of the immune system and use of anti-inflammatory cytokines are of potential interest in the management of dermal fibrosis. In this review, we will discuss the importance of immune factors in the pathogenesis of raised dermal scarring. The aim here is to provide an up-to-date comprehensive review of the literature, from PubMed, Scopus, and other relevant search engines in order to describe the known immunological factors associated with raised dermal scarring. The importance of immune cells including mast cells, macrophages, lymphocytes, and relevant molecules such as cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors, antibodies, transcription factors, and other immune-associated molecules as well as tissue lymphoid aggregates identified within raised dermal scars will be presented. A growing body of evidence points to a shift from proinflammatory Th1 response to regulatory/anti-inflammatory Th2 response being associated with the development of fibrogenesis in raised dermal scarring. In summary, a better understanding of immune cells and associated molecular markers in dermal fibrosis will likely enable future development of potential immune-modulated therapeutic, diagnostic, and theranostic targets in raised dermal scarring.

Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: Advances in Treatment and Review of Established Therapies

Hypertrophic scars and keloids can have significant detrimental effects on patients both psychosocially and functionally. A careful identification of patient risk factors and a comprehensive management plan are necessary to optimize outcomes. Patients with a history of dystrophic scarring should avoid unnecessary procedures and enhance the wound-healing process using various preventive strategies. As there is no single, fully efficacious treatment modality, prevention remains the best approach in reducing aberrant scar formation. When prevention therapies fail, keloids have been shown to be respond to a variety of therapies including topical and injectable corticosteroids, 5-fluorouracil, radiotherapy, lasers, and surgical excision, all with varying efficacies. As such, management should be tailored to the individual patient's risk factors with the use of combination therapies to reduce recurrence rates. Still, keloid and hypertrophic scar therapies are widely diverse with novel treatment modalities providing alternatives for recurring lesions. Laser-assisted drug delivery, skin priming, and novel topical therapies may provide alternative options for the management of hypertrophic scars and keloids.

Efficacy and Safety of Verapamil Versus Triamcinolone Acetonide in Treating Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Keloids and hypertrophic scars can affect the appearance and normal function of patients, and may severely affect patients' physical and mental health. Many methods have been used for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars, there is no standardized method so far. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of verapamil and triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) in treating keloids and hypertrophic scars.

METHODS

All studies from their inception date up to August 2022 were searched using four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). The weighted mean differences and the risk ratio were calculated for comparing continuous variables and dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of nine randomized controlled trials involving 567 patients were identified. This meta-analysis indicated that TAC group showed significantly better effects compared with verapamil group in the reduction of height at 3 and 9 weeks, pliability at 3, 9, and 18 weeks, vascularity at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 weeks, whereas verapamil group showed significantly better effects compared with TAC group in the reduction of pliability at 21 and 24 weeks. Verapamil group showed a significantly lower incidence of skin atrophy, telangiectasia, and hypopigmentation compared with TAC group. However, the incidence of burning sensation in verapamil group was higher than that in TAC group.

CONCLUSION

Concerning the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars, TAC was more effective than verapamil for improving vascularity; TAC was superior to verapamil in improving height within 9 weeks of treatment; TAC produced superior result for improving pliability within 18 weeks of treatment, whereas verapamil produced superior result between 18 and 24 weeks of treatment. Verapamil had fewer adverse events than TAC and can be used as a safer alternative for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Cyclical Stretching Induces Excess Intracellular Ca2+ Influx in Human Keloid-Derived Fibroblasts In Vitro

BACKGROUND

The incidence of keloids is higher in the case of darker skin. It is more common in the parts exposed to stretching (thorax, abdomen, and joints). Cyclical stretching reportedly induced each Ca2+ spike through differential mechanosensitive channels in human synovial and dermal fibroblasts. Therefore, the authors hypothesized that cyclical stretching also induces a specific Ca2+ spike in keloid-derived fibroblasts.

METHODS

This in vitro study compared the intracellular calcium dynamics induced by cyclical stretching between control (human dermal fibroblasts) and keloid (human keloid-derived fibroblasts) groups. Each group was exposed to two-dimensional stretch using an originally developed stretch microdevice. Intracellular Ca2+ was observed for 5 minutes, including 30 seconds of baseline, under a fluorescent confocal laser microscope. The intracellular Ca2+ concentration was evaluated every 0.5 second using the fluorescence intensity ratio. A positive cellular response was defined as a rise of the ratio by greater than or equal to 20%. The normal response cutoff value was determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

The keloid groups were significantly more responsive than the control groups (15.7% versus 8.2%; P = 0.029). In the cellular response-positive cells, the keloid groups reached significantly higher intracellular Ca2+ concentration peaks than the control groups (2.20 versus 1.26; P = 0.0022). The cutoff value was 1.77, and 10.4% of the keloid-derived fibroblasts exhibited a hyper-Ca2+ spike above the normal range.

CONCLUSIONS

Keloid-derived fibroblasts with a hyper-Ca2+ spike might constitute a keloid-specific subpopulation. Hereafter, the authors will study whether the normalization of excessive intracellular Ca2+ concentration leads to keloid treatment in vivo.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study result provided a clue to the onset mechanism of keloids, which the authors hope will lead to the development of new therapy in the future.

Keloid Treatment Using Plasma Exeresis: A Pilot Trial Study

Introduction: Keloid scars and hypertrophic scars are more commonly seen after surgeries, suture placements, or other skin damages. Scars can be treated using a variety of methods, including topical compounds, surgery, and lasers. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of plasma exeresis on the treatment of keloid scars. Methods: This experimental study was conducted on patients with keloid scars, defined as a treatment-resistant subtype of scars with extension beyond the primary skin defect and cauliflower appearance, in different parts of the body. The patients were treated with 2-to-3-session plasma exeresis. Scars were examined based on the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) before and 5 months after the treatment. Results: A total number of 24 scars were enrolled in this study. The number of patients was 16. There was a decrease in the mean thickness of keloids from 2.20 to 0.54 (P=0.000). The mean pigmentation and pliability scores decreased from 1.54 and 2.16 to 0.375 and 0.541, respectively (P=0.001, 000). There was a significant reduction in the keloid scar vascularity score from 1.666 to 0.541 (P=0.000). There was a decrease from 0.708 to 0.00 (P=0.004) in the mean itchiness score. After the intervention, the mean pain score was 0.000, compared to 0.7500 before the intervention (P=0.003). There was a decrease in the total score from 8.958 to 2.000 (P=0.000). Conclusion: The plasma exeresis procedure is effective in destroying small keloid scars. Furthermore, results in less itching and pain, as well as no significant complications or recurrences.

Treatment of Keloids: A Meta-analysis of Intralesional Triamcinolone, Verapamil, and Their Combination

Keloids are skin lesions of abnormal and excessive scar proliferation that have no agreed upon gold standard of therapy. Extensive research in this area has shown that both intralesional triamcinolone and verapamil are effective in their treatment.

The Most Current Algorithms for the Treatment and Prevention of Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A 2020 Update of the Algorithms Published 10 Years Ago

BACKGROUND

In 2010, this Journal published my comprehensive review of the literature on hypertrophic scars and keloids. In that article, I presented evidence-based algorithms for the prevention and treatment of these refractory pathologic scars. In the ensuing decade, substantial progress has been made in the field, including many new randomized controlled trials. To reflect this, I have updated my review.

METHODS

All studies were evaluated for methodologic quality. Baseline characteristics of patients were extracted along with the interventions and their outcomes. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and comprehensive reviews were included if available.

RESULTS

Risk factors that promote hypertrophic scar and keloid growth include local factors (tension on the wound/scar), systemic factors (e.g., hypertension), genetic factors (e.g., single-nucleotide polymorphisms), and lifestyle factors. Treatment of hypertrophic scars depends on scar contracture severity: if severe, surgery is the first choice. If not, conservative therapies are indicated. Keloid treatment depends on whether they are small and single or large and multiple. Small and single keloids can be treated radically by surgery with adjuvant therapy (e.g., radiotherapy) or multimodal conservative therapy. For large and multiple keloids, volume- and number-reducing surgery is a choice. Regardless of the treatment(s), patients should be followed up over the long term. Conservative therapies, including gel sheets, tape fixation, topical and injected external agents, oral agents, and makeup therapy, should be administered on a case-by-case basis.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized controlled trials on pathologic scar management have increased markedly over the past decade. Although these studies suffer from various limitations, they have greatly improved hypertrophic scar and keloid management. Future high-quality trials are likely to improve the current hypertrophic scar and keloid treatment algorithms further.

Network Meta-Analysis of Different Clinical Commonly Used Drugs for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid

Background: There is no uniform treatment for pathological scars, including keloids and hypertrophic scars, in clinic currently. Previously, multiple randomized controlled trials have examined the clinical efficacy of different treatments. Nonetheless, the results are inconsistent, and many treatments have not been directly compared. This makes it difficult to conclude which approach is more favorable, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the treatment of pathological scarring. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of different injection and topical treatment strategies for hypertrophic scar and keloid.

Methods: Relevant literature from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) were searched, from database inception through November 2020. Randomized clinical trials evaluating different treatment strategies of pathological scars, including triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), verapamil (VER), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), botulinum toxin A (BTA), bleomycin (BLM), and silicone gels were included in the study.

Results: The network meta-analysis included a total of 2,009 patients from 29 studies. A network meta-analysis of injection and topical treatment strategies showed that the efficacy of TAC combined with BTA was best in the treatment of pathological scars. Combination therapies of TAC with 5-FU and TAC with BTA significantly improved the clinical efficiency. However, there was no statistically significant difference between other treatment strategies. The order of efficacy predicted by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve was as follows: TAC+BTA (82.2%) > TAC+5-FU (69.8%) > BTA (67.3%) > 5-FU+silicone (59.4%) > TAC+silicone (58.3%) > 5-FU (49.8%) > BLM (42.0%) > TAC (26.7%) > VER (26.2%) > silicone (18.3%). There was no publication bias revealed based on the funnel diagram.

Conclusion: This study recommends intralesional injection of TAC-BTA and TAC-5-FU combined therapies. But for patients who cannot tolerate the side effects, the use of silicone gels in combination with TAC is recommended. However, these conclusions need to be further confirmed by more randomized controlled trials.

Comparative efficacy and safety of verapamil and triamcinolone in keloid and hypertrophic scar treatment: a meta-analysis

Keloids and hypertrophic scars are harmful to physical and psychological health. The study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of verapamil and triamcinolone in the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Relevant publications were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, Weipu, and Wanfang databases. Results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs) or the relative ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models according to the heterogeneity among studies. The pooled results indicated that the triamcinolone treatment showed significantly better effectiveness in height (at 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 weeks), pliability (at 3, 6, 9, 21, and 24 weeks) and vascularity (at 3, 6, 9, and 12 week) than that of verapamil (P < .05). Moreover, the side effects such as skin atrophy (RR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.42, P = .001), telangiectasia (RR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.28, P < .001), and hyperpigmentation (RR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.44, P = .001) of verapamil were significantly less than those in triamcinolone. This meta-analysis showed that triamcinolone had a better therapeutic efficacy than verapamil, while verapamil was more safety.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Intralesional Verapamil With Intralesional Triamcinolone Acetonide in Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical treatment of hypertrophic scars (HSs) and keloids is often unsatisfactory. Intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) and verapamil are widely used to treat HSs and keloids, but their efficacy and safety are controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of verapamil and TAC in the treatment of HSs and keloids.

METHODS

Embase, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to February 2020. RCTs that evaluated treatment effects with the Vancouver Scar Scale or reported adverse effects were included. The continuous data and the dichotomous variables were analyzed as mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR), respectively.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs (461 patients) were included. Compared with verapamil, TAC rapidly changed the ∆height (MD = 0.07; P < 0.05) and ∆pliability (MD = 0.23; P < 0.05) after the first session, but subsequent treatments resulted in no significant differences in the ∆height, ∆pigmentation, ∆vascularity, and ∆pliability. Although total adverse effects (RR = 0.42; P = 0.1) were not significantly different, in the subgroup analysis the incidence of telangiectasia (RR = 0.04; P < 0.05) and skin atrophy (RR = 0.10; P < 0.05), but not pain (RR = 1.27; P = 0.77), was significantly lower with verapamil than with TAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Verapamil may be an effective substitute for TAC. Although total adverse effects did not change, the incidence of telangiectasia and skin atrophy was lower with verapamil than with TAC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Therapeutic Strategies by Regulating Interleukin Family to Suppress Inflammation in Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid

Hypertrophic scar (HS) and keloid are fibroproliferative disorders (FPDs) of the skin due to aberrant wound healing, which cause disfigured appearance, discomfort, dysfunction, psychological stress, and patient frustration. The unclear pathogenesis behind HS and keloid is partially responsible for the clinical treatment stagnancy. However, there are now increasing evidences suggesting that inflammation is the initiator of HS and keloid formation. Interleukins are known to participate in inflammatory and immune responses, and play a critical role in wound healing and scar formation. In this review, we summarize the function of related interleukins, and focus on their potentials as the therapeutic target for the treatment of HS and keloid.

The Efficacy of Drug Injection in the Treatment of Pathological Scar: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological scars mainly include hyperplastic scars and keloids, and there is no uniform treatment standard for the treatment of pathological scar in clinic now. Drug injection in the treatment of pathological scar is widely used because of its advantages of less trauma and simple operation. Therefore, we used a network meta-analysis to compare the curative effect of four kinds of drugs which are commonly used in the treatment of pathological scar such as botulinum toxin type A, corticosteroids (including diprospan and triamcinolone acetonide (TAC)), verapamil and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), systematically. It is hoped that our study will provide evidence for the choice of drugs in the treatment of pathological scar by injection.

METHODS

Relevant articles from Wanfang, VIP, CNKI, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were extracted by us. They were included into a network meta-analysis to compare the four kinds of drugs which are commonly used in the treatment of pathological scar.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included a total of 1513 patients from 23 studies. Through meta-analysis, we found that the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A combined with corticosteroid drugs was best in the treatment of pathological scar by injection. There was no significant difference between botulinum toxin type A, corticosteroids combined with 5 Fu, verapamil and 5-FU. The efficacy of corticosteroids combined with 5-FU was better than that of corticosteroids alone and verapamil alone, but there was no significant difference between them and 5-FU. Further, the order of efficacy predicted by the SUCRA curve was as follows: botulinum toxin type A combined with corticosteroids > corticosteroids combined with 5-FU > botulinum toxin type A > corticosteroids > 5-FU > verapamil. Moreover, no publication bias was found in the funnel diagram.

CONCLUSION

In the injection treatment of pathological scar, we recommend the combined injection of two drugs, especially botulinum toxin type A combined with corticosteroids. The effective treatment of botulinum toxin type A combined with corticosteroids in the treatment of pathological scar is as follows: Patients were treated once monthly with intralesional injection of TAC (0.1 ml/cm³) mixed with botulinum toxin type A (2.5 IU/cm³) for a total of 3 treatments. However, there are still limitations in this network meta-analysis, and its conclusion still needs to be further confirmed by more randomized controlled trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Scoping Review of Therapeutic Strategies for Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars

Background:

Keloids are an abnormal proliferation of scars that can involve large areas of tissue beyond the original injury site. Hypertrophic scars are similar clinically, but do not exceed the original scar limits. These scarring abnormalities can cause noxious symptoms such as pain, tenderness, itching, and ulcerations. The aim of this review is to discuss current therapies for both types of abnormal scarring, and to determine if guidelines can be provided for excisional treatment with adjuvant therapies versus non-excisional methods.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was performed through the Web of Science database. The search revolved around keywords such as “keloid,” “hypertrophic scars,” and “treatment.” Articles were reviewed and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review focuses on an analysis and summarization of randomized control trials regarding keloid or hypertrophic scar treatments.

Results:

The original searches produced 1161 and 1275 articles for keloid and hypertrophic scars, respectively. In total, 316 duplicates were found. After accounting for 2014–2019 publication time, 655 keloid and 893 hypertrophic scar articles were reviewed. This resulted in 15 articles that pertained to treatment and randomized control trials.

Conclusions:

Keloids and hypertrophic scars present a clinical challenge. Based on qualitative review of recurrence, neither excision plus adjuvant therapy or nonsurgical treatments can be recommended preferentially at this time. More research is needed to determine if recurrence rate bias exists between the treatment regimens, as excisional treatment plus adjuvant therapy is reserved for refractory scars.

Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection for Mammoplasty and Abdominoplasty Scar Management: A Split-Scar Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Scars are inevitable results of surgical procedures, and prevention of them is still a major problem in the field of cosmetic surgery. Although various studies have been performed on botulinum toxin-A (BoNT-A) injection for the prevention of hypertrophic scars, the exact mechanism remains unclear.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blinded, randomized study was performed on 19 patients who underwent mammoplasty and abdominoplasty surgery in Razi Hospital from October 2018 to December 2019. Single session of treatment was performed, where XEOMIN was allocated to one half of the scar and 0.9% saline to the control half. 3 and 6 months later, scars were assessed using the modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES).

RESULTS

In total, 19 patients who completed the study were analyzed. mSBSES at the third month (P value < 0.001; 3.34 ± 1.59 vs 1.5 ± 1.36) and the sixth month (P value < 0.001; 4.89 ± 1.83 vs 2.39 ± 1.82) showed a significant difference between the treatment and control groups. In the subset analysis, there was significant difference between BoNT-A and control in all four items including width, height, color, and scar visibility at months 3 and 6, and the BoNT-A-treated sides had higher scores in all items.

CONCLUSION

BoNT-A has a significant effect on scar prevention due to mammoplasty and abdominoplasty compared to placebo and results in decreased erythema, height, width and reduces incision line visibility. Moreover, its effect increases significantly over time from months 3 to 6.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Keloids: a review of therapeutic management

Keloid scar formation arises from a disorganized fibroproliferative collagen response that extends beyond the original wound margins because of excessive production of extracellular matrix (ECM). Despite treatment options for keloid scars including medical and surgical therapies, such as intralesional steroid injection and surgical excision, the recurrence rate remains high. Herein we consolidate recently published narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses to provide an overview of updated treatment recommendations for keloidal scar formation. PubMed search engine was used to access the MEDLINE database to investigate updates regarding keloid incidence and treatment. More than 100 articles were reviewed. Keloid management remains a multimodal approach. There continues to be no gold standard of treatment that provides a consistently low recurrence rate; however, the increasing number of available treatments and synergistic combinations of these treatments (i.e., laser-based devices in combination with intralesional steroids, or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in combination with steroid therapy) is showing favorable results. Future studies could target the efficacy of novel treatment modalities (i.e., autologous fat grafting or stem cell-based therapies) for keloid management. This review article provides updated treatment guidelines for keloids and discusses insight into management to assist patient-focused, evidence-based clinical decision making.

A Review of Current Keloid Management: Mainstay Monotherapies and Emerging Approaches

Commonly affecting those with skin of color, keloids are an aberrant wound response that leads to wound tissue expanding above and beyond the original cutaneous injury. Keloids are notoriously and particularly difficult to treat because of their tendency to recur after excision. The current standard of care is intralesional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide). However, because no therapy has yet proven to be fully curative, keloid treatments have expanded to include a number of options, from injections to multimodal approaches. This review details current treatment of keloids with injections (bleomycin, verapamil, hyaluronic acid and hyaluronidase, botulinum toxin, and collagenase), cryotherapy, laser, radiofrequency ablation, radiation, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, pentoxifylline, and dupilumab.

Evidence-based therapy in hypertrophic scars: An update of a systematic review

Hypertrophic scars are still a major burden for numerous patients, especially after burns. Many treatment options are available; however, no evidence-based treatment protocol is available with recommendations mostly emerging from experience or lower quality studies. This review serves to discuss the currently available literature. A systematic review was performed and the databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for suitable publications. Only original articles in English that dealt with the treatment of hypertrophic scars in living humans were analyzed. Further, studies with a level of evidence lower than 1 as defined by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons were excluded. After duplicate exclusion, 1638 studies were screened. A qualitative assessment yielded 163 articles eligible for evidence grading. Finally nine studies were included. Four of them used intralesional injections, four topical therapeutics and one assessed the efficacy of CO₂ -laser. Intralesional triamcinolone + fluorouracil injections, and topical pressure and/or silicone therapy revealed significant improvements in terms of scar height, pliability, and pigmentation. This systematic review showed that still few high-quality studies exist to evaluate therapeutic means and their mechanisms for hypertrophic scars. Among these, most of them assessed the efficacy of intralesional triamcinolone injections with the same treatment protocol. Intralesional injection appears to be the best option for hypertrophic scar treatment. Future studies should focus on a possible optimization of infiltrative therapies, consistent end-point evaluations, adequate follow-up periods, and possibly intraindividual treatments.

Efficacy and safety of verapamil vs triamcinolone acetonide for keloids and hypertrophic scars: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars remains a challenge. Although triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) is one of the most common and effective treatments for keloids and hypertrophic scars, TAC is not effective in some patients, and some may even experience adverse outcomes. Verapamil might be considered a safe alternative to TAC. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of verapamil and TAC for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Three databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database) were electronically searched from 1997 to December 2019. Article selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Two authors independently assessed the selection of studies, risk of bias, and extracted the data. Mean differences (MDs) were computed for continuous variables, risk ratios (RRs) were computed for dichotomous variables, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for both assessments. Five RCTs were included, comprising a total of 215 patients (273 scars). Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) parameters (such as height, vascularity, pliability, and pigmentation) were reported as the outcome measures and provided detailed values in four studies. No significant differences were observed between verapamil and TAC in the reduction of height (MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to 2.08, P = .46), vascularity (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.42 to 1.02, P = .41), pliability (MD 0.67, 95% CI -1.12 to 2.47, P = .46), and degree of pigmentation (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.69, P = .61). Adverse outcomes were reported in four studies. The results showed that the incidence of telangiectasia and skin atrophy that used verapamil was significantly lower than that for TAC. Concerning the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars, even though verapamil was safer than TAC, TAC worked faster than verapamil. Furthermore, we did not find any clear evidence that verapamil was more or less effective than TAC. Considering the high degree of safety of verapamil, we suggest that verapamil might be used as an alternative treatment when TAC results in adverse outcomes.

The Role of IL-6 in Skin Fibrosis and Cutaneous Wound Healing

The timely resolution of wound healing is critical for restoring the skin as a protective barrier. The switch from a proinflammatory to a reparative microenvironment must be tightly regulated. Interleukin (IL)-6 is a key modulator of the inflammatory and reparative process: it is involved in the differentiation, activation, and proliferation of leukocytes, endothelial cells, keratinocytes, and fibroblasts. This review examines the role of IL-6 in the healing of cutaneous wounds, and how dysregulation of IL-6 signaling can lead to either fibrosis or a failure to heal. The role of an IL-6/TGF-β feedback loop is discussed in the context of fibrogenesis, while IL-6 expression and responses in advanced age, diabetes, and obesity is outlined regarding the development of chronic wounds. Current research on therapies that modulate IL-6 is explored. Here, we consider IL-6′s diverse impact on cutaneous wound healing.

Within-Patient, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Triamcinolone Acetonide Injections for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar in Adult Burn Survivors

Intralesional corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide [TAC]) injections have become one of the cornerstone treatments of hypertrophic scar (HSc). However, the evidence is of limited-quality, and published investigations have almost exclusively been performed in linear scars rather than hypertrophic burn scars. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform an appropriately powered, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of TAC injections on burn HSc compared with patient-matched usual care control scars. Fifty burn survivors with two scars (separated by nonscarred skin preferably on the contralateral side or an anatomically similar site) were selected based on high-frequency ultrasound thickness (&gt;2.034 mm to ensure that the site was outside of the range of normal scar). Pretreatment thickness measurements of the two sites were within 0.5 mm of each other, to ensure homogeneity and an erythema index &gt;300 to establish they were immature HSc. The sites were randomly assigned to treatment or control. The treatment HSc received a 10 mg/ml TAC. When necessary, the injection was repeated after 6 weeks and a third final injection 6 weeks later. Objective evaluation of thickness, elasticity, erythema, and melanin was obtained at the treatment and control sites at pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up 6 weeks after the last injection. Thirty participants completed the study, reaching the required number for an adequately powered sample based on pilot study data analyses. Ten participants received only one injection, 27 received only two injections, and 13 received three injections of TAC. Analysis of covariance comparing the treatment vs control HSc posttreatment, controlling for pretreatment values and Fitzpatrick skin type, revealed a significant decrease in thickness and increase in elasticity of the treated compared with control HSc (P = .0003), but no significant difference in erythema or melanin. Pretreatment to posttreatment comparisons using paired t-tests revealed a significant decrease in thickness of both the treated and control HSc, an increase in elasticity of the treated HSc during the treatment period, but no significant change in the control HSc elasticity or erythema of either site, and a significant increase in melanin of both the treated (P &lt; .001) and control (P = .02) HSc. A regression model for repeated measures, controlling for pretreatment values and skin type, revealed no significant change in thickness, elasticity, erythema, or melanin during the 6-week follow-up. Although thickness decreased at both the treated and control HSc across time, there was a significantly greater reduction at the TAC injected HSc and a significantly greater increase in elasticity. Melanin significantly increased at both the treatment and control site. There was no significant change during the follow-up period of any of the HSc characteristics.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Common Therapies in Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

At present, there are many therapies for treating keloids and hypertrophic scars, but there is still a lack of treatments that are relatively balanced in efficacy and safety. The study aims to evaluate comprehensively efficacy and safety of common therapies in keloids and hypertrophic scars.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted up to May 2019. The traditional meta-analysis was performed on 17 therapies. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted on the four most common treatments. The outcome indicators were the numbers of patients with good-to-excellent effect, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and adverse events.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) compared with other monotherapies except for silicone gel sheet and neodymium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet in primary indicator. The combination therapies were superior to TAC, and the results were consistent after the pooled analysis (RR = 0.522, 95% CI 0.332-0.823). The level of VSS in TAC group was higher than that in 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and TAC + 5-FU group, but lower than that in verapamil (VER) group. And the patients treated with TAC were less safe than those treated with verapamil (P = 0.013). Surface under cumulative ranking ranked verapamil and TAC + 5-FU as the favorable efficacy therapies in terms of primary indicator and ranked TAC + 5-FU as the best therapy for VSS, while VER was ranked as the worst.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that TAC + 5-FU may be the most effective therapy, while verapamil may be a better therapeutic strategy for safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

A multimodal approach to the treatment of extensive burn scars: a modified subcision technique for intralesional delivery of corticosteroid and 5-fluorouracil in combination with several procedural laser therapies; a case report

Introduction:

Hypertrophic scars and keloids are challenging to manage due to recurrence and often sub-optimal response to treatment. There is a lack of both definitive treatment standards and randomised controlled trials comparing therapeutic options. While a wide array of procedures has been utilised to improve traumatic burn scars, such interventions have been used with varying degrees of success. Some reported methods include intralesional injections of anti-inflammatory and anti-mitotic medications, laser-based therapy, topical therapies, cryotherapy, silicone gel sheeting, pressure therapy, radiotherapy and reconstructive surgery.

Case:

We report a case of extensive traumatic burn scarring on the head and neck successfully treated with a multimodal approach comprised of an infrequently used modified subcision technique to deliver alternating intralesional injections of anti-inflammatory (high-dose steroid) and anti-metabolite (5-flurouracil) concurrently with a series of laser (epilatory, vascular and fractional) treatments.

Methods:

Our treatment modality utilised a subcisional technique to deliver intralesional steroid and anti-metabolite medications directly into scar tissue to downregulate inflammation and inhibit collagen synthesis. Alexandrite, fractional and pulsed dye laser therapy was employed to improve skin texture, reduce dyschromia and reduce tissue burden of hypertrophic scar and keloid tissue, resulting in improved mobility and skin elasticity.

Conclusion:

Our case supports a combined medical and procedural, subcisional, approach to successfully treat a patient with extensive hypertrophic scarring and keloid formation with associated hair entrapment after a head and neck burn.

Head and neck scarring can result in significant psychological and physical impairments that may interfere with a patient’s daily life activities and self-esteem. Burn injuries can result in hypertrophic scars and keloids that are large in size, out of proportion to the initial area of injury, thought to be due to inflammation that increases collagen production in the skin. In our case report, we utilise a combined, non-surgical method of steroid and anti-metabolite injections as well as laser technology to successfully reduce the symptoms and appearance of large head and neck scars. Treatments consisted of a non-invasive combination of injections into the scar tissue delivering medication to reduce inflammation, pulsed dye laser to aid in decreasing scar thickness and Alexandrite laser to reduce inflammation associated with trapped hair follicles. One session of erbium fractional laser therapy was performed with local anaesthesia, creating microscopic wounds to stimulate collagen remodelling in the skin and facilitate resurfacing and healing of the scar. These treatment sessions were performed outpatient and occurred at eight-week intervals for 10 months. Results included decreased associated itching, increased mobility of the head and neck, and improved skin texture and colour. Our patient also reported an overall improvement in his mental wellbeing.