{"title":"瘢痕内切除作为治疗瘢痕疙瘩的一种手术策略:有什么证据?","authors":"Ioannis Goutos","doi":"10.1177/2059513119867297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Keloid scars are a particularly challenging clinical entity and a variety of management approaches have been described in the literature including intralesional surgery. The current literature lacks a summative review to ascertain the evidence base behind this surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive English literature database search was performed using PubMed Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science from their individual dates of inception to March 2018. We present the different rationales proposed for the use of this technique, the clinical outcomes reported in the literature as well as the scientific basis for intralesional excision of keloid scars.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A number of arguments have been proposed to support intralesional excision including avoiding injury to neighbouring non-keloidal skin and the deep layer of the dermis, removal of the most proliferative fibroblastic group as well as debulking to facilitate the administration of injectable steroid. The most current literature does not provide sufficient support for the adoption of intralesional excisions based on data emerging from basic science as well as clinical outcome studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Emerging evidence supports the extralesional excision of keloid scars based on current mechanobiological, histological as well as clinical outcome data. Further trials comparing extralesional and intralesional surgical practices are eagerly awaited to ascertain the role of intralesional excisions in the keloid management arena.</p>","PeriodicalId":94205,"journal":{"name":"Scars, burns & healing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2059513119867297","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intralesional excision as a surgical strategy to manage keloid scars: what's the evidence?\",\"authors\":\"Ioannis Goutos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2059513119867297\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Keloid scars are a particularly challenging clinical entity and a variety of management approaches have been described in the literature including intralesional surgery. The current literature lacks a summative review to ascertain the evidence base behind this surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive English literature database search was performed using PubMed Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science from their individual dates of inception to March 2018. We present the different rationales proposed for the use of this technique, the clinical outcomes reported in the literature as well as the scientific basis for intralesional excision of keloid scars.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A number of arguments have been proposed to support intralesional excision including avoiding injury to neighbouring non-keloidal skin and the deep layer of the dermis, removal of the most proliferative fibroblastic group as well as debulking to facilitate the administration of injectable steroid. The most current literature does not provide sufficient support for the adoption of intralesional excisions based on data emerging from basic science as well as clinical outcome studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Emerging evidence supports the extralesional excision of keloid scars based on current mechanobiological, histological as well as clinical outcome data. Further trials comparing extralesional and intralesional surgical practices are eagerly awaited to ascertain the role of intralesional excisions in the keloid management arena.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scars, burns & healing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2059513119867297\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scars, burns & healing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2059513119867297\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scars, burns & healing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2059513119867297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
摘要
引言:瘢痕疙瘩是一个特别具有挑战性的临床实体,文献中描述了各种治疗方法,包括病变内手术。目前的文献缺乏总结性综述来确定这种手术方法背后的证据基础。方法:使用PubMed Medline、EMBASE和Web of Science从其成立日期到2018年3月进行全面的英语文献数据库搜索。我们介绍了使用该技术的不同理由、文献中报道的临床结果以及瘢痕疙瘩病灶内切除的科学依据。讨论:已经提出了许多论点来支持病变内切除,包括避免对邻近的非瘢痕疙瘩皮肤和真皮深层造成损伤,去除最具增殖性的成纤维细胞群,以及去除斑点以促进注射类固醇的给药。根据基础科学和临床结果研究的数据,最新的文献并没有为采用病灶内切除术提供足够的支持。结论:根据目前的机械生物学、组织学和临床结果数据,新出现的证据支持瘢痕疙瘩的病灶外切除。人们热切期待着对病变外和病变内手术实践进行进一步的比较试验,以确定病变内切除在瘢痕疙瘩治疗领域的作用。
Intralesional excision as a surgical strategy to manage keloid scars: what's the evidence?
Introduction: Keloid scars are a particularly challenging clinical entity and a variety of management approaches have been described in the literature including intralesional surgery. The current literature lacks a summative review to ascertain the evidence base behind this surgical approach.
Methods: A comprehensive English literature database search was performed using PubMed Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science from their individual dates of inception to March 2018. We present the different rationales proposed for the use of this technique, the clinical outcomes reported in the literature as well as the scientific basis for intralesional excision of keloid scars.
Discussion: A number of arguments have been proposed to support intralesional excision including avoiding injury to neighbouring non-keloidal skin and the deep layer of the dermis, removal of the most proliferative fibroblastic group as well as debulking to facilitate the administration of injectable steroid. The most current literature does not provide sufficient support for the adoption of intralesional excisions based on data emerging from basic science as well as clinical outcome studies.
Conclusion: Emerging evidence supports the extralesional excision of keloid scars based on current mechanobiological, histological as well as clinical outcome data. Further trials comparing extralesional and intralesional surgical practices are eagerly awaited to ascertain the role of intralesional excisions in the keloid management arena.