Unlocking Better Keloid Treatment: Corticosteroid, 5‐Fluorouracil, and Hyaluronidase vs. Corticosteroid Alone – A Randomized Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Keloids are challenging lesions to manage due to their resistance to treatment and high recurrence rates. This study evaluated the efficacy of an intralesional injection combining triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil, and hyaluronidase compared with triamcinolone monotherapy in treating keloids. Methods: This single-blinded clinical trial involved 16 participants, block-randomized into two groups. The intervention group received intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (0.2 cc of 40 mg/cc solution), 5-fluorouracil (0.4 cc of 250 mg/5cc vial), and hyaluronidase (0.2 cc equivalent to 300 IU). The control group received triamcinolone acetonide (0.2 cc of 40 mg/cc solution) with 0.6 cc lidocaine of 2%. Keloid characteristics were assessed before treatment, after three injections at 3-4-week intervals, and 2 months posttreatment. Results: Significant improvements were observed in both groups. However, the intervention group showed greater reductions in lesion height, pliability, and modified Vancouver scar scale scores compared to the control group. No complications resulted from our interventional injection during the study period, while telangiectasia occurred with triamcinolone monotherapy. Conclusion: These findings suggest that triple therapy was as effective as steroid monotherapy, with better outcomes in specific aspects of scar improvement and without side effects. Hyaluronidase could be promising for further research in this area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".