Comparative Efficacy and Recurrence Risk of Intralesional Therapies for Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
I-Chang Lai, Guan-Lun Huang, Kuan-Chun Lee, Po-Yuan Wu
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy and Recurrence Risk of Intralesional Therapies for Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"I-Chang Lai, Guan-Lun Huang, Kuan-Chun Lee, Po-Yuan Wu","doi":"10.1093/asj/sjaf182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hypertrophic scars and keloids are fibroproliferative disorders arising from aberrant wound healing, often leading to aesthetic disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial burden. Intralesional therapies remain a mainstay of treatment, yet the comparative efficacy and recurrence profiles of different agents have not been definitively established. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD), Cochrane Library (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Google Scholar (Alphabet, Inc., Mountain View, CA) from inception through May 2025, restricted to English-language publications, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing two or more intralesional treatments for hypertrophic scars or keloids. Twenty-four eligible trials were included in a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis integrating direct and indirect comparisons. Pooled estimates demonstrated that triamcinolone acetonide combined with 5-fluorouracil (TAC+5-FU) achieved the most consistent improvements in treatment efficacy and recurrence control. Botulinum toxin A (BTA) ranked highest in treatment response but did not significantly reduce recurrence risk. Verapamil (VER) was associated with significantly lower efficacy compared with TAC, whereas bleomycin (BLM) and 5-FU monotherapies provided intermediate outcomes without statistical superiority. Overall, TAC+5-FU offered the most favorable balance between efficacy and recurrence reduction, while BTA showed strong response efficacy. These findings provide a comprehensive synthesis of intralesional therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids, support the consideration of combination regimens in scar management, and underscore the need for further well-designed head-to-head trials with standardized endpoints to refine individualized treatment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":7728,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaf182","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hypertrophic scars and keloids are fibroproliferative disorders arising from aberrant wound healing, often leading to aesthetic disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial burden. Intralesional therapies remain a mainstay of treatment, yet the comparative efficacy and recurrence profiles of different agents have not been definitively established. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD), Cochrane Library (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Google Scholar (Alphabet, Inc., Mountain View, CA) from inception through May 2025, restricted to English-language publications, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing two or more intralesional treatments for hypertrophic scars or keloids. Twenty-four eligible trials were included in a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis integrating direct and indirect comparisons. Pooled estimates demonstrated that triamcinolone acetonide combined with 5-fluorouracil (TAC+5-FU) achieved the most consistent improvements in treatment efficacy and recurrence control. Botulinum toxin A (BTA) ranked highest in treatment response but did not significantly reduce recurrence risk. Verapamil (VER) was associated with significantly lower efficacy compared with TAC, whereas bleomycin (BLM) and 5-FU monotherapies provided intermediate outcomes without statistical superiority. Overall, TAC+5-FU offered the most favorable balance between efficacy and recurrence reduction, while BTA showed strong response efficacy. These findings provide a comprehensive synthesis of intralesional therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids, support the consideration of combination regimens in scar management, and underscore the need for further well-designed head-to-head trials with standardized endpoints to refine individualized treatment strategies.

增生性疤痕和瘢痕疙瘩病灶内治疗的比较疗效和复发风险:网络荟萃分析。
增生性疤痕和瘢痕疙瘩是由异常伤口愈合引起的纤维增生性疾病,通常导致美观毁容、功能损伤和社会心理负担。病灶内治疗仍然是主要的治疗方法,但不同药物的比较疗效和复发情况尚未明确确定。我们对PubMed(美国国立卫生研究院,Bethesda, MD)、Cochrane图书馆(Wiley, Hoboken, NJ)、美国国立卫生研究院正在进行的试验注册、EMBASE(爱思唯尔,阿姆斯特丹,荷兰)和谷歌Scholar (Alphabet, Inc., Mountain View, CA)进行了系统检索,从一开始到2025年5月,仅限于英语出版物,以确定比较两种或两种以上的增生性疤痕或瘢痕瘤病灶内治疗的随机对照试验。24项符合条件的试验被纳入频率随机效应网络荟萃分析,整合了直接和间接比较。综合估计显示曲安奈德联合5-氟尿嘧啶(TAC+5-FU)在治疗疗效和复发控制方面的改善最为一致。肉毒毒素A (BTA)在治疗反应中排名最高,但没有显著降低复发风险。与TAC相比,维拉帕米(VER)的疗效明显较低,而博来霉素(BLM)和5-FU单药治疗提供了中间结果,没有统计学优势。总体而言,TAC+5-FU在疗效和减少复发之间提供了最有利的平衡,而BTA表现出较强的缓解疗效。这些发现为增生性疤痕和瘢痕疙瘩的病灶内治疗提供了全面的综合,支持在疤痕管理中考虑联合治疗方案,并强调需要进一步设计良好的头对头试验,标准化终点,以完善个体化治疗策略。
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
6.20
自引率
20.70%
发文量
309
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Surgery Journal is a peer-reviewed international journal focusing on scientific developments and clinical techniques in aesthetic surgery. The official publication of The Aesthetic Society, ASJ is also the official English-language journal of many major international societies of plastic, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery representing South America, Central America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also the official journal of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信