Comparing the Efficacy of Triamcinolone Acetonide Versus Bleomycin in Hypertrophic Scars in Burn Patients: A Clinical Trial.

Q2 Medicine
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Pub Date : 2024-09-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.47176/mjiri.38.111
Siamak Farokh Forghani, Behnam Sobouti, Ardavan Shahbazi, Yaser Ghavami, Parinaz Ghanooni, Reza Vaghardoost
{"title":"Comparing the Efficacy of Triamcinolone Acetonide Versus Bleomycin in Hypertrophic Scars in Burn Patients: A Clinical Trial.","authors":"Siamak Farokh Forghani, Behnam Sobouti, Ardavan Shahbazi, Yaser Ghavami, Parinaz Ghanooni, Reza Vaghardoost","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.38.111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment of hypertrophic burn scars is challenging. Intralesional injection of corticosteroids has been the first line of treatment. Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) and Bleomycin (BLE) are standard therapeutic options. We conducted a comparative study to measure the effects of BLE and TA on hypertrophic burn scars.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this clinical trial, we enrolled 25 patients with hypertrophic burn scars in this study. In each patient, two adjacent affected areas on the body were randomly selected for intralesional injection of TA and BLE. The size of the burn scars was between 10 and 40 cm2 (square centimeter). The injections were repeated at intervals of four weeks for three periods. Follow-up of patients continued until the end of the fourth month of treatment. We used the Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale system to compare the recovery of each lesion. Means, standard deviation, and p-values comparing the treatment of lesions with BLE and TA using two different scales were reported. Independent samples t-test and paired sample t-test were used to find out a statistically significant difference between BLE and TA treated lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the hypertrophic scar scores in BLE and TA lesions were statistically significant from the perspective of patients and physicians (<i>P</i> = 0.035). The mean score of hypertrophic scars in the BLE and TA groups was also statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.023). The proportion of individuals who had no side effects after taking BLE and TA was much higher than those who experienced skin pain or hypopigmentation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intralesional BLE injection is more effective than TA in treating hypertrophic scars. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to approve these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":"38 ","pages":"111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707708/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Treatment of hypertrophic burn scars is challenging. Intralesional injection of corticosteroids has been the first line of treatment. Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) and Bleomycin (BLE) are standard therapeutic options. We conducted a comparative study to measure the effects of BLE and TA on hypertrophic burn scars.

Methods: In this clinical trial, we enrolled 25 patients with hypertrophic burn scars in this study. In each patient, two adjacent affected areas on the body were randomly selected for intralesional injection of TA and BLE. The size of the burn scars was between 10 and 40 cm2 (square centimeter). The injections were repeated at intervals of four weeks for three periods. Follow-up of patients continued until the end of the fourth month of treatment. We used the Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale system to compare the recovery of each lesion. Means, standard deviation, and p-values comparing the treatment of lesions with BLE and TA using two different scales were reported. Independent samples t-test and paired sample t-test were used to find out a statistically significant difference between BLE and TA treated lesions.

Results: The results showed that the hypertrophic scar scores in BLE and TA lesions were statistically significant from the perspective of patients and physicians (P = 0.035). The mean score of hypertrophic scars in the BLE and TA groups was also statistically significant (P = 0.023). The proportion of individuals who had no side effects after taking BLE and TA was much higher than those who experienced skin pain or hypopigmentation.

Conclusion: Intralesional BLE injection is more effective than TA in treating hypertrophic scars. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to approve these results.

比较曲安奈德与博来霉素治疗烧伤增生性瘢痕的疗效:一项临床试验。
背景:肥厚性烧伤疤痕的治疗具有挑战性。病灶内注射皮质类固醇一直是治疗的第一线。曲安奈德(TA)和博来霉素(BLE)是标准治疗选择。我们进行了一项比较研究,以衡量BLE和TA对增生性烧伤疤痕的影响。方法:在本临床试验中,我们招募了25例增生性烧伤瘢痕患者。在每个患者中,随机选择两个相邻的身体患处进行TA和BLE的局内注射。烧伤疤痕的大小在10到40平方厘米之间。注射每隔四周重复三次。患者的随访一直持续到治疗的第四个月结束。我们使用温哥华疤痕量表和患者和观察者疤痕评估量表系统来比较每个病变的恢复情况。报告了使用两种不同量表比较BLE和TA治疗病变的平均值、标准差和p值。采用独立样本t检验和配对样本t检验,比较BLE与TA治疗病变的差异有统计学意义。结果:从患者和医生的角度来看,BLE和TA病变的增生性瘢痕评分有统计学意义(P = 0.035)。BLE组和TA组增生性瘢痕的平均评分也有统计学意义(P = 0.023)。服用BLE和TA后无副作用的个体比例远远高于经历皮肤疼痛或色素减退的个体比例。结论:病灶内注射BLE治疗增生性瘢痕效果优于TA。要证实这些结果,还需要更大样本量的进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信