-
Wound Repair and Regeneration :... Sep 2020Hypertrophic scars are still a major burden for numerous patients, especially after burns. Many treatment options are available; however, no evidence-based treatment...
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 CO -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.
Topics: Burns; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32506727
DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12839 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2020To assess the efficacy of topical silicone gel in the management of scars, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To assess the efficacy of topical silicone gel in the management of scars, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, and six randomised controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were involved. The outcome data of Vancouver Scar Scale were extracted from the studies and their effect sizes were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. As a result, topical silicone gel significantly reduced pigmentation, height, and pliability scores postoperatively compared with placebos or no treatment (Pigmentation: standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.55 [-0.83 to -0.26], P = .0002; Height: SMD = -0.73 [-1.02 to -0.44], P < .00001; Pliability: SMD = -0.49 [-0.95 to -0.03], P = .04). Topical silicone gel and silicone gel sheet were comparably effective (P > .05). The performance of topical silicone gel and other non-silicone topical treatment was also similar (P > .05). In summary, topical silicone gel was effective in post-operative scar prevention.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Cicatrix; Gels; Humans; Silicone Gels
PubMed: 32119763
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13337 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2016Keloid is a cutaneous dermal outgrowth resulting from uncontrolled deposition of collagen and glycosaminoglycan around the wound. The uncontrolled and persistent growth...
Keloid is a cutaneous dermal outgrowth resulting from uncontrolled deposition of collagen and glycosaminoglycan around the wound. The uncontrolled and persistent growth of keloids scar will result in cosmetic disfigurement, functional impairment, and affect the quality of life. Triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) is traditionally employed in treating keloid scars. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of TAC and compare it with other common therapy employed in keloid treatment. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) and controlled trial were included. Inverse variance risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the effect of intervention. Meta-analysis indicated that TAC treatment significantly reduced the size of keloid compared to untreated control. Reduction in size was statistically different in favor of TAC compared to silicone gel sheet. Significant difference in favor of TAC was observed compared with verapamil in term of vascularity and scar pliability. TAC treatment was more effective in reducing scar thickness in comparison with cryotherapy. However, the current meta-analysis has several limitations. Only a limited number of trials with the same comparison are available. Most trials recruited a small number of patients and used inconsistent outcome assessment. Most trials did not provide detail information on allocation concealment and blinding. Therefore, further evaluation in multi-center RCTs with consistent comparisons and outcome measurements are warrant to reach a consensus on the selection between TAC and different treatment modalities.
PubMed: 28083534
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2016.00071