Comparative efficacy of intralesional verapamil hydrochloride, triamcinolone acetonide and combination of both drug in hypertrophic scars and keloids at tertiary care center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Keloids and hypertrophic scars are still a therapeutic problem. Despite numerous proposed therapies reported in the literature, the management of keloid and hypertrophic scars is still challenging as there is no universally accepted treatment regimen. Compare the efficacy intralesional verapamil hydrochloride and triamcinolone acetonide separately as well as combination of both drug in treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids.Methods: A retrospective study was carried out at the general surgery department (plastic surgery unit) at the JNUIMSRC Jaipur, Rajasthan. Total of 150 patients (60 males and 90 females) between 18 to 60 years of age were enrolled fulfilling the inclusion criteria. They were randomly categorized in to three groups (group A, B and C), based on treatment they received viz. verapamil alone, triamcinolone alone and combination of both drugs respectively. Assessment of the scars were done prior to or on the day of the first injection and at 24 weeks after the end of injection scheme by Vancouver scar scale (VSS). The decreasing values reflected clinical improvement of the scar.Results: Better improvement observed in all four parameters: height, vascularity, pliability and pigmentation among patients receiving combination of both triamcinolone-verapamil drugs as compare to those patients receiving drugs separately either verapamil or triamcinolone alone. For parameters height, pliability and pigmentation, the improvement was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05)Conclusions: Study highlights that the combined verapamil and triamcinolone therapy scheme causes remarkable scar improvement in keloid and hypertrophic scars in comparison to single drug scheme.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".