Comparing the Effect of Intralesional 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) Alone Versus Intralesional 5-FU Combined With Triamcinolone Acetonide for Keloid Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Keloid is a benign hyper-proliferative growth of dermal fibroblasts, which extends beyond the borders of the original wound. It does not regress spontaneously and has the tendency to recur after excision. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) alone versus intralesional 5-FU combined with triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) in the treatment of keloids. METHODOLOGY: This prospective observational study was conducted at the Department of Dermatology, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from July 2018 to July 2019. In this study, 66 cases, 33 in each group of aged 15-50 years having keloid of at least three or more on the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) score lasting less than five years, were included. The 66 patients were categorized into two equal groups. Group A was treated with 5-FU alone, and group B with 5-FU combined with TCA. Efficacy was defined as achieving a VSS score of 0 after eight weeks of treatment. RESULTS: From the 66 patients, there were 19 (57.58%) males in group A and 15 (46.88%) in group B. There were a total of nine (27.27%) cases of diabetes mellitus (DM) in group A and eight (24.24%) in group B. There were 12 (36.36%) and 10 (30.30%) hypertensive cases in groups A and B, respectively. Compliance was 100% in both groups. Efficacy in group A was seen in 25 (75.76%) cases and 32 (96.97%) cases in group B, with a p-value of 0.02. This efficacy was significantly better in group B in terms of male gender, where it was seen in 100% of cases in group B compared to 13 (68.42%) of cases in group A, with a p-value of 0.02. There was no significant difference in terms of age groups, BMI, and hypertension (HTN). The efficacy in diabetics was nearly significantly better in group B, where it was seen in 100% of the cases (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Both groups are efficacious for the treatment of keloid; however, the combination of 5-FU and TCA revealed greater efficacy, and it was significantly better than 5-FU alone. The results were again significantly better in terms of efficacy in the male gender and those who had keloids for more than one year.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".