Effect of Keloid Properties on Treatment Efficacy, a Systematic Review.
Journal
Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]
ISSN: 1524-4725
Titre abrégé: Dermatol Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9504371
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jun 2024
14 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline:
14
6
2024
pubmed:
14
6
2024
entrez:
14
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The efficacy of keloid treatment in randomized studies is highly variable. However, no systematic review has been performed to evaluate the effect of different keloid properties on treatment efficacy. To identify clinically relevant keloid properties that may influence treatment efficacy. An electronic database search was conducted. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and performed a methodologic quality assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. One thousand five hundred twenty studies were screened, and 16 RCTs, involving 1,113 patients, were included. The authors found lower efficacy in older keloids (n = 3), keloids located on the chest, extremities, pinna, and shoulder (n = 3), larger keloids (n = 2), lower baseline Vancouver Scar Scale score (n = 1), and keloids with history of recurrence (n = 1). Overall, most studies had a high risk of bias. Only a minority of studies specifically addressed keloid properties, which makes comparisons between studies challenging. The authors' results suggest that keloid location, duration prior to treatment, size, history of recurrence, and severity are clinically relevant keloid properties that affect treatment efficacy. Further studies are crucial to corroborate the authors' findings, establish a clinically relevant keloid classification, and ultimately develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm that takes these properties into account.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of keloid treatment in randomized studies is highly variable. However, no systematic review has been performed to evaluate the effect of different keloid properties on treatment efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To identify clinically relevant keloid properties that may influence treatment efficacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
An electronic database search was conducted. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and performed a methodologic quality assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One thousand five hundred twenty studies were screened, and 16 RCTs, involving 1,113 patients, were included. The authors found lower efficacy in older keloids (n = 3), keloids located on the chest, extremities, pinna, and shoulder (n = 3), larger keloids (n = 2), lower baseline Vancouver Scar Scale score (n = 1), and keloids with history of recurrence (n = 1). Overall, most studies had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Only a minority of studies specifically addressed keloid properties, which makes comparisons between studies challenging. The authors' results suggest that keloid location, duration prior to treatment, size, history of recurrence, and severity are clinically relevant keloid properties that affect treatment efficacy. Further studies are crucial to corroborate the authors' findings, establish a clinically relevant keloid classification, and ultimately develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm that takes these properties into account.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38874219
doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000004256
pii: 00042728-990000000-00841
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc.
Références
Barker JBT, Chalmers R, Griffiths CEM, Creamer D, et al. Rook’s Textbook of Dermatology. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2016.
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
Abdel-Meguid AM, Weshahy AH, Sayed DS, Refaiy AEM, et al. Intralesional vs. contact cryosurgery in treatment of keloids: a clinical and immunohistochemical study. Int J Dermatol 2015;54:468–75.
Albalat W, Nabil S, Khattab F. Assessment of various intralesional injections in keloid: comparative analysis. J Dermatolog Treat 2022;33:2051–6.
Ismail SA, Mohammed NHK, Sotohy M, Abou-Taleb DAE. Botulinum toxin type A versus 5-Fluorouracil in treatment of keloid. Arch Dermatol Res 2021;313:549–56.
Khan HA, Sahibzada MN, Paracha MM. Comparison of the efficacy of intralesional bleomycin versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of keloids. Dermatol Ther 2019;32:e13036.
Mourad B, Elfar N, Elsheikh S. Spray versus intralesional cryotherapy for keloids. J Dermatolog Treat 2016;27:264–9.
Neinaa YME, Elsayed TA, Mohamed DA, Elfar NN. Botulinum toxin and platelet rich plasma as innovative therapeutic modalities for keloids. Dermatol Ther 2021;34:e14900.
Tawfic SO, El-Tawdy A, Shalaby S, Foad A, et al. Evaluation of fractional CO(2) versus long pulsed Nd:YAG lasers in treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a randomized clinical trial. Lasers Surg Med 2020;52:959–65.
Hewedy ES, Sabaa BESI, Mohamed WS, Hegab DS. Combined intralesional triamcinolone acetonide and platelet rich plasma versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide alone in treatment of keloids. J Dermatolog Treat 2022;33:150–6.
Manzoor H, Tahir K, Nasir A, Mufti S, et al. Comparison of efficacy of intralesional 5-fluorouracil alone, intralesional triamcinolone acetonide alone and intralesional triamcinolone acetonide with 5-fluorouracil in management of keloids. J Pakistan Assoc Dermatol. 2021;30:282–5.
Rani TU, Shanker VK, Vengareddy S, Thotli MKR, et al. Comparative study of various topical and surgical treatment modalities in keloid. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2022;4:449–57.
Saha AK, Mukhopadhyay M. A comparative clinical study on role of 5-fluorouracil versus triamcinolone in the treatment of keloids. Indian J Surg 2012;74:326–9.
Serag-Eldin YMA, Mahmoud WH, Gamea MM, Hegab DS. Intralesional pentoxifylline, triamcinolone acetonide, and their combination for treatment of keloid scars. J Cosmet Dermatol 2021;20:3330–40.
Aluko-Olokun B, Olaitan AA, Ladeinde AL, Oginni FO. The facial keloid: a comparison of treatment outcome between intralesional steroid injection and excision combined with radiotherapy. Eur J Plast Surg 2014;37:361–6.
Belie O, Ugburo AO, Mofikoya BO, T Omidiji OA, et al. A comparison of intralesional verapamil and triamcinolone monotherapy in the treatment of keloids in an African population. Niger J Clin Pract 2021;24:986–92.
Davison SP, Mess S, Kauffman LC, Al-Attar A. Ineffective treatment of keloids with interferon alpha-2b. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:247–52.
Bijlard E, Timman R, Verduijn GM, Niessen FB, et al. Intralesional cryotherapy versus excision with corticosteroid injections or brachytherapy for keloid treatment: randomised controlled trials. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71:847–56.
Ogawa R. The most current algorithms for the treatment and prevention of hypertrophic scars and keloids. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:557–68.
Long X, Zhang M, Wang Y, Zhao R, et al. Algorithm of chest wall keloid treatment. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4684.