Keloidoscope: in search for the ideal treatment of keloids

Recurrence rates in the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars with intralesional triamcinolone combined with other intralesional agents

Hypertrophic scars (HTS) and keloids are pathologic scars that are products of a wound healing pathway error attributed to genetic and inflammatory causes (Leventhal et al., Arch Facial Plast Surg 8(6):362-368. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.8.6.362 , 2006). Methods of pathologic scar treatment include intralesional agents, cryotherapy, surgical excision, pressure dressings, topical agents, laser resurfacing, radiotherapy, and other investigational therapies (Leventhal et al. 2006). The recurrence of pathologic scar is high across all treatment modalities, including the use of intralesional agents (Trisliana Perdanasari et al., Arch Plast Surg 41(6):620-629. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.620 , 2014). In the treatment of pathologic scar, combination approaches using intralesional agents, such as triamcinolone (TAC), 5-fluorouracil (5FU), verapamil (VER), bleomycin (BLM), and botulinum toxin (BTX), are superior therapies when compared to monotherapy (Yosipovitch et al., J Dermatol Treat 12(2):87-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/095466301317085363 , 2001; Yang et al., Front Med 8:691628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.691628 , 2021; Sun et al., Aesthetic Plast Surg 45(2):791-805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01570-8 , 2021). This review assesses recurrence and the reporting of recurrence in pathologic scar after treatment with intralesional triamcinolone (TAC) in combination with another intralesional agent. A literature review was conducted using research journals from PubMed using the following search terms: [(keloid) AND (triamcinolone) AND (combination) AND (intralesional)], as well as [(keloid) AND (triamcinolone) AND (combination)]. Articles were reviewed and included if the article analyzed  or compared intralesional agents for pathologic scar treatment within the last 10 years. The average follow-up period of included articles (n = 14) that utilized combination intralesional therapy (TAC-X) was approximately 11 months (range 1-24 months). Consistent recurrence rate reporting across studies was lacking. The combination agent with the highest recurrence rate was TAC-5FU (23.3%). The range of reported recurrence rates was 7.5-23.3%. Six studies using various intralesional combination regimens reported 0% recurrence over the follow-up period (TAC-5FU, TAC-BTX, TAC-BLM, TAC-CRY). Three studies did not report recurrence rates. While the efficacy of combination therapy is typically assessed via scar scales, the assessment of recurrence across studies of combination therapy is inconsistent and inadequate, with truncated follow-up periods. While scar recurrence can take place during 1-year post-treatment, long-term follow-up (18-24 months) is needed to characterize recurrence in the treatment of pathologic scar using various intralesional agents. Long-term follow-up periods allow patients to receive accurate prognostic information regarding recurrence after combination intralesional therapy. There are limitations to this review in that comparisons were made across studies with varying outcome variables, including scar size, injection concentration and interval, and follow-up period. Standardized follow-up periods and recurrence rate reporting are integral to furthering the understanding of these therapies and enhancing patient care.

Progress in the clinical treatment of keloids

Keloid is a pathological scar that is higher than the skin surface following skin damage. Its lesion range often extends beyond the original damage boundary and does not naturally subside over time. Its pathogenesis is very complex, currently the main causes include fibroblast excessive proliferation, collagen and extracellular matrix (Extracellular matrix, ECM) excessive deposition, excessive angiogenesis, and so on. The traditional treatment method primarily involves surgical intervention, but it is associated with a high recurrence rate post-surgery. Consequently, many treatment methods are derived according to the different clinical characteristics of keloid. This paper will review the therapeutic progress in recent years from surgical treatment, physiotherapy, drug therapy, and biological therapy, with the goal of offering valuable insights for the clinical treatment of keloids.

Intralesional Corticosteroid Administration in the Treatment of Keloids: A Scoping Review on Injection Methods

BACKGROUND

Intralesional corticosteroid administration (ICA) is a first-line treatment for keloids. However, its clinical results are still highly variable and often suboptimal. Treatment results may strongly be influenced by various operator-dependent factors. The aim of this study was to map the details of ICA in keloids described in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), hence presenting the scientific practice of a first-line treatment for keloids in the best available evidence.

SUMMARY

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Eligible studies were RCTs including patients with keloids treated with intralesional corticosteroids. Treatment and study design-related data were charted on a predefined form. Thirty-eight RCTs were included for data extraction. Triamcinolone acetonide was used in 37 (97.4%) studies. Dosing per cm2 could only be compared among ten (26%) studies and varied from 1 to 20 mg. The maximum dose per session varied from 20 to 80 mg. Local anesthetics were administered in seven (20%) RCTs. Treatment intervals varied from weekly to monthly, with 4 weeks most frequently (50%) used. Needle size was reported in eleven (29%) studies and varied from 26 to 30-gauge. Syringe size was specified in four (11%) studies, being 1 mL. The injection level was described in eleven (29%) studies. Blanching as endpoint was reported in ten (26%) studies. Outcome measures varied widely, from height, surface area, or volume, to Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, pain and itch scores, patient satisfaction, and different efficacy rates. Only six studies had a follow-up of ≥6 months. Recurrence was identified in two studies with 18 weeks and 1 year of follow-up. Adverse events were reported in 23 (61%) studies.