The Most Current Algorithms for the Treatment and Prevention of Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A 2020 Update of the Algorithms Published 10 Years Ago.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, this Journal published my comprehensive review of the literature on hypertrophic scars and keloids. In that article, I presented evidence-based algorithms for the prevention and treatment of these refractory pathologic scars. In the ensuing decade, substantial progress has been made in the field, including many new randomized controlled trials. To reflect this, I have updated my review. METHODS: All studies were evaluated for methodologic quality. Baseline characteristics of patients were extracted along with the interventions and their outcomes. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and comprehensive reviews were included if available. RESULTS: Risk factors that promote hypertrophic scar and keloid growth include local factors (tension on the wound/scar), systemic factors (e.g., hypertension), genetic factors (e.g., single-nucleotide polymorphisms), and lifestyle factors. Treatment of hypertrophic scars depends on scar contracture severity: if severe, surgery is the first choice. If not, conservative therapies are indicated. Keloid treatment depends on whether they are small and single or large and multiple. Small and single keloids can be treated radically by surgery with adjuvant therapy (e.g., radiotherapy) or multimodal conservative therapy. For large and multiple keloids, volume- and number-reducing surgery is a choice. Regardless of the treatment(s), patients should be followed up over the long term. Conservative therapies, including gel sheets, tape fixation, topical and injected external agents, oral agents, and makeup therapy, should be administered on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials on pathologic scar management have increased markedly over the past decade. Although these studies suffer from various limitations, they have greatly improved hypertrophic scar and keloid management. Future high-quality trials are likely to improve the current hypertrophic scar and keloid treatment algorithms further.

Safety and efficacy of local administration of contractubex to hypertrophic scars in comparison to corticosteroid treatment. Results of a multicenter, comparative epidemiological cohort study in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and efficacy of Contractubex administration to hypertrophic scars in routine out-patient practice and to compare it to corticosteroid treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, based on 38 randomly selected practices representatively distributed in Germany, including dermatologists and general practitioners. Data from 859 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were assessed and analyzed. Of these, 771 patients were eligible for the per protocol treatment with Contractubex (n=555) and corticosteroid (n=216). The safety and efficacy of local administration of Contractubex to hypertrophic scars was compared to corticosteroid treatment. RESULTS: At the end of defined treatment periods (minimum 28 days for local therapy with 1 intralesional corticosteroid application), normalization of the pre-treatment pathological parameters (erythema, pruritus, consistency) of hypertrophic scars was more frequent (42.5%) after Contractubex per protocol treatment as compared to corticosteroid per protocol treatment (22.2%). After adjusting imbalances of baseline characterisics between the treatment groups by the propensity score, the odds ratio was 2.274, demonstrating a significant superiority (p<0.001) of Contractubex treatment as compared to corticosteroid treatment. The time to normalization of erythema, pruritus and consistency was significantly (p=0.034) shorter with Contractubex treatment (median 344 days) than with corticosteroids (median 507 days). No unexpected or severe adverse events occurred in the Contractubex-treated patients. Apart from moderate pruritus (10% Contractubex vs. 1% corticosteroids), adverse events were significantly (p<0.001) more frequent in corticosteroid-treated patients (teleangiectasias 15% vs. 7% Contractubex; cutaneous atrophy of scars 10% vs. 2% Contractubex; cutaneous atrophy of scar surrounding skin tissue 11% vs. 1% Contractubex). CONCLUSION: For the primary aim of this study (assessment of normalization of erythema, pruritus, and consistency of hypertrophic scars) and for time to normalization, local administration of Contractubex was significantly more effective than corticosteroid treatment. Concerning safety, Contractubex treatment was associated with significantly less adverse events (e.g. teleangiectasias, cutaneous atrophy of scars and surrounding skin tissue) than topical corticosteroid application.