Efficacy and safety of intralesional triple combination versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of keloids: A randomised controlled trial.

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY
T Sanjay Kumar Menon, Jude Ernest Dileep, Sheela Kuruvila, Damayandhi Kaliyaperumal, Ilakkia Priya Sadasivam, Sushmitha Dharanisankar, Gayathri Jayabalan, Divya Mani
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of intralesional triple combination versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of keloids: A randomised controlled trial.","authors":"T Sanjay Kumar Menon, Jude Ernest Dileep, Sheela Kuruvila, Damayandhi Kaliyaperumal, Ilakkia Priya Sadasivam, Sushmitha Dharanisankar, Gayathri Jayabalan, Divya Mani","doi":"10.25259/IJDVL_1263_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Treatment of keloids presents a significant therapeutic challenge due to their tendency to recur and their impact on a patient's quality of life. This randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of intralesional triple combination regimen versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy in treating keloids. Aims To compare the efficacy and safety of intralesional triple combination versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy in treating keloids at any site. Methods This study was conducted in the outpatient department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy in a tertiary care hospital at Puducherry. Seventy two patients aged ≥18 years with a clinical diagnosis of keloids of any duration, involving any site and without any prior treatment were included in the study. Patients were randomised into two groups: Group A received intralesional triple combination (triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil and hyaluronidase), while Group B received intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy. Treatments were administered every three weeks for four sessions or till complete flattening, whichever was earlier. The Vancouver Scar Scale was used for assessment at baseline and every three weeks for four sessions, and monthly for three months post treatment. Results Both groups showed significant improvement in the Vancouver Scar Scale scores at each follow-up compared to baseline. The mean (percentage) improvement in the Vancouver Scar Scale score in Group A was 0.58 ± 0.5 (7.08%) at three weeks, which progressively increased to 4.47 ± 1.29 (54.55%) at the final follow-up. In Group B, the improvement was lesser, with 0.08 ± 0.28 (0.95%) at three weeks, increasing to 3.08 ± 0.81 (36.65%) at the final follow-up. This improvement was significantly more in Group A at all time points compared to Group B (p < 0.05). Post-procedure pain, which lasted for a few hours, was noted in three and two patients in Groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.642). None of the patients had a recurrence of keloids during the study. Limitations Limitations of this study include small sample size, single centre design, short follow-up period, lack of blinding and patient-reported outcome measures, which may impact the generalisability of the findings. Conclusion Intralesional triple combination is more effective than triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy in treating keloids, offering significantly superior improvements in the Vancouver Scar Scale scoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":50376,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology & Leprology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology & Leprology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/IJDVL_1263_2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Treatment of keloids presents a significant therapeutic challenge due to their tendency to recur and their impact on a patient's quality of life. This randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of intralesional triple combination regimen versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy in treating keloids. Aims To compare the efficacy and safety of intralesional triple combination versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy in treating keloids at any site. Methods This study was conducted in the outpatient department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy in a tertiary care hospital at Puducherry. Seventy two patients aged ≥18 years with a clinical diagnosis of keloids of any duration, involving any site and without any prior treatment were included in the study. Patients were randomised into two groups: Group A received intralesional triple combination (triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil and hyaluronidase), while Group B received intralesional triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy. Treatments were administered every three weeks for four sessions or till complete flattening, whichever was earlier. The Vancouver Scar Scale was used for assessment at baseline and every three weeks for four sessions, and monthly for three months post treatment. Results Both groups showed significant improvement in the Vancouver Scar Scale scores at each follow-up compared to baseline. The mean (percentage) improvement in the Vancouver Scar Scale score in Group A was 0.58 ± 0.5 (7.08%) at three weeks, which progressively increased to 4.47 ± 1.29 (54.55%) at the final follow-up. In Group B, the improvement was lesser, with 0.08 ± 0.28 (0.95%) at three weeks, increasing to 3.08 ± 0.81 (36.65%) at the final follow-up. This improvement was significantly more in Group A at all time points compared to Group B (p < 0.05). Post-procedure pain, which lasted for a few hours, was noted in three and two patients in Groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.642). None of the patients had a recurrence of keloids during the study. Limitations Limitations of this study include small sample size, single centre design, short follow-up period, lack of blinding and patient-reported outcome measures, which may impact the generalisability of the findings. Conclusion Intralesional triple combination is more effective than triamcinolone acetonide monotherapy in treating keloids, offering significantly superior improvements in the Vancouver Scar Scale scoring.

局部三联与局部曲安奈德治疗瘢痕疙瘩的疗效和安全性:一项随机对照试验。
背景:由于瘢痕疙瘩的复发倾向和对患者生活质量的影响,治疗呈现出显著的治疗挑战。本随机对照试验旨在比较病灶内三联疗法与病灶内曲安奈德单药治疗瘢痕疙瘩的有效性。目的比较局部三联治疗与局部单药曲安奈德治疗瘢痕疙瘩的疗效和安全性。方法本研究在普杜切里一家三级医院皮肤科、性病科和麻风病门诊部进行。72例年龄≥18岁,临床诊断为瘢痕疙瘩的患者,不论持续时间,涉及任何部位,且未接受过任何治疗。患者随机分为两组:A组接受局部三联治疗(曲安奈德、5-氟尿嘧啶和透明质酸酶),B组接受局部曲安奈德单药治疗。治疗每三周进行一次,共进行四次,或直到完全平坦,以较早者为准。温哥华疤痕量表用于基线评估,每三周评估一次,共四个疗程,治疗后三个月每月评估一次。结果与基线相比,两组在每次随访时的温哥华疤痕量表得分均有显著改善。三周时,A组温哥华疤痕量表评分的平均(百分比)改善为0.58±0.5(7.08%),最终随访时逐渐增加到4.47±1.29(54.55%)。B组改善较小,3周时为0.08±0.28(0.95%),末次随访时为3.08±0.81(36.65%)。与B组相比,A组在所有时间点的改善均显著增加(p < 0.05)。a组3例,B组2例,术后疼痛持续数小时(p = 0.642)。在研究期间,没有患者复发瘢痕疙瘩。本研究的局限性包括样本量小、单中心设计、随访时间短、缺乏盲法和患者报告的结果测量,这可能会影响研究结果的普遍性。结论病灶内三联治疗瘢痕疙瘩比单药曲安奈德治疗更有效,温哥华疤痕量表评分改善明显。
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
2.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
247
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists & Leprologists (IADVL) is the national association of Indian medical specialists who manage patients with skin disorders, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or leprosy. The current member strength of the association is about 3800. The association works for the betterment of the specialty by holding academic meetings, printing a journal and publishing a textbook. The IADVL has several state branches, each with their own office bearers, which function independently within the constitution of the IADVL. Established in 1940, the Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL, ISSN 0378-6323) is the official publication of the IADVL (Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists).
×
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