A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Intralesional Triamcinolone versus Intralesional 5-FU in Keloid Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Keloids represent a challenging fibrotic skin disorder with high recurrence and significant psychosocial impact. Multiple intralesional therapies have been advocated, yet direct comparative data remain limited. Objectives: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety profiles of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) and intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in treating keloid scars. Methods: In a prospective, randomized study of 50 adults with keloids, participants were allocated to receive either intralesional TAC or 5-FU at two-week intervals for up to six sessions. Efficacy was assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), symptom scores, and objective scar measurements at baseline and follow-up. Adverse events were recorded throughout. Results: By week 12, complete scar flattening (VSS height 0) was achieved in 68% of the TAC group and 44% of the 5-FU group. Both treatments produced significant reductions in pigmentation, vascularity, pliability, and symptoms. TAC accelerated cosmetic improvement but was associated with more atrophy and telangiectasia, while 5-FU reduced scar bulk and pruritus faster but caused greater injection discomfort and occasional ulceration. Long-term recurrence data were limited due to 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: Both TAC and 5-FU are effective and safe for keloid management. TAC may produce more rapid cosmetic improvement, whereas 5-FU may be preferred for patients at risk of steroid side effects. Combination therapy and longer-term outcomes warrant future research.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".