Role of intralesional bleomycin in recurrent or residual keloids and hypertrophic scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Keloids and hypertrophic scars are difficult to treat. There are many modalities available with variable success rate. Triamcinolone is still the most commonly used drug but recurrence and partial response to this conventional treatment is still a major concern. Many studies have proved the role and efficacy of intralesional bleomycin and this study was done to assess the role of intralesional bleomycin in recurrent and residual lesions.Methods: The patients with recurrent lesion or residual lesions after the injection of triamcinolone were enrolled in the study. Patients received local infiltration of bleomycin. The injections were scheduled at monthly intervals for three consecutive months. They were followed at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th months. Scar assessment was done by calculating its volume, Vancouver scar scale (VSS) and visual analogue score (pain and pruritis). Side effects were also recorded. Final assessment was done at 1year for any recurrence.Results: Twenty-five patients completed the study. The most common location of scars was presternal (52%) and trauma was the most common cause in scars (20%). We observed the decrease of volume of 75.85% which was highly significant on statistical analysis (p=0.001). Similarly, statistically significant difference was noticed in VSS, VAS for pain and pruritis. No systemic side effects were noticed. No recurrence was noted at the end of 12 months.Conclusion: Intralesional bleomycin is found to be useful in management of recurrent or residual lesions. It can be a potential option in the management of recurrent and residual hypertrophic scars and keloids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".