Hypertrophic scars and keloids: Overview of the evidence and practical guide for differentiating between these abnormal scars.

Although hypertrophic scars and keloids both generate excessive scar tissue, keloids are characterized by their extensive growth beyond the borders of the original wound, which is not observed in hypertrophic scars. Whether or not hypertrophic scars and keloids are two sides of the same coin or in fact distinct entities remains a topic of much debate. However, proper comparison between the two ideally occurs within the same study, but this is the exception rather than the rule. For this reason, the goal of this review was to summarize and evaluate all publications in which both hypertrophic scars and keloids were studied and compared to one another within the same study. The presence of horizontal growth is the mainstay of the keloid diagnosis and remains the strongest argument in support of keloids and hypertrophic scars being distinct entities, and the histopathological distinction is less straightforward. Keloidal collagen remains the strongest keloid parameter, but dermal nodules and α-SMA immunoreactivity are not limited to hypertrophic scars alone. Ultimately, the current hypertrophic scars-keloid differences are mostly quantitative in nature rather than qualitative, and many similar abnormalities exist in both lesions. Nonetheless, the presence of similarities does not equate the absence of fundamental differences, some of which may not yet have been uncovered given how much we still have to learn about the processes involved in normal wound healing. It therefore seems pertinent to continue treating hypertrophic scars and keloids as separate entities, until such a time as new findings more decisively convinces us otherwise.

Human hypertrophic and keloid scar models: principles, limitations and future challenges from a tissue engineering perspective.

Most cutaneous wounds heal with scar formation. Ideally, an inconspicuous normotrophic scar is formed, but an abnormal scar (hypertrophic scar or keloid) can also develop. A major challenge to scientists and physicians is to prevent adverse scar formation after severe trauma (e.g. burn injury) and understand why some individuals will form adverse scars even after relatively minor injury. Currently, many different models exist to study scar formation, ranging from simple monolayer cell culture to 3D tissue-engineered models even to humanized mouse models. Currently, these high-/medium-throughput test models avoid the main questions referring to why an adverse scar forms instead of a normotrophic scar and what causes a hypertrophic scar to form rather than a keloid scar and also, how is the genetic predisposition of the individual and the immune system involved. This information is essential if we are to identify new drug targets and develop optimal strategies in the future to prevent adverse scar formation. This viewpoint review summarizes the progress on in vitro and animal scar models, stresses the limitations in the current models and identifies the future challenges if scar-free healing is to be achieved in the future.

The Keloid Disorder: Heterogeneity, Histopathology, Mechanisms and Models.

Keloids constitute an abnormal fibroproliferative wound healing response in which raised scar tissue grows excessively and invasively beyond the original wound borders. This review provides a comprehensive overview of several important themes in keloid research: namely keloid histopathology, heterogeneity, pathogenesis, and model systems. Although keloidal collagen versus nodules and α-SMA-immunoreactivity have been considered pathognomonic for keloids versus hypertrophic scars, conflicting results have been reported which will be discussed together with other histopathological keloid characteristics. Importantly, histopathological keloid abnormalities are also present in the keloid epidermis. Heterogeneity between and within keloids exists which is often not considered when interpreting results and may explain discrepancies between studies. At least two distinct keloid phenotypes exist, the superficial-spreading/flat keloids and the bulging/raised keloids. Within keloids, the periphery is often seen as the actively growing margin compared to the more quiescent center, although the opposite has also been reported. Interestingly, the normal skin directly surrounding keloids also shows partial keloid characteristics. Keloids are most likely to occur after an inciting stimulus such as (minor and disproportionate) dermal injury or an inflammatory process (environmental factors) at a keloid-prone anatomical site (topological factors) in a genetically predisposed individual (patient-related factors). The specific cellular abnormalities these various patient, topological and environmental factors generate to ultimately result in keloid scar formation are discussed. Existing keloid models can largely be divided into in vivo and in vitro systems including a number of subdivisions: human/animal, explant/culture, homotypic/heterotypic culture, direct/indirect co-culture, and 3D/monolayer culture. As skin physiology, immunology and wound healing is markedly different in animals and since keloids are exclusive to humans, there is a need for relevant human in vitro models. Of these, the direct co-culture systems that generate full thickness keloid equivalents appear the most promising and will be key to further advance keloid research on its pathogenesis and thereby ultimately advance keloid treatment. Finally, the recent change in keloid nomenclature will be discussed, which has moved away from identifying keloids solely as abnormal scars with a purely cosmetic association toward understanding keloids for the fibroproliferative disorder that they are.

Monocytes co-cultured with reconstructed keloid and normal skin models skew towards M2 macrophage phenotype.

Several abnormalities have been reported in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of keloid-forming patients and particularly in the monocyte cell fraction. The goal of this in vitro study was to determine whether monocytes from keloid-prone patients contribute to the keloid phenotype in early developing keloids, and whether monocyte differentiation is affected by the keloid microenvironment. Therefore, keloid-derived keratinocytes and fibroblasts were used to reconstruct a full thickness, human, in vitro keloid scar model. The reconstructed keloid was co-cultured with monocytes from keloid-forming patients and compared to reconstructed normal skin co-cultured with monocytes from non-keloid-formers. The reconstructed keloid showed increased contraction, dermal thickness (trend) and α-SMA+ staining, but co-culture with monocytes did not further enhance the keloid phenotype. After 2-week culture, all monocytes switched from a CD11chigh/CD14high/CD68low to a CD11chigh/CD14low/CD68high phenotype. However, only monocytes co-cultured with either reconstructed keloid scar or normal skin models skewed towards the more fibrotic M2-macrophage phenotype. There was negligible fibroblast and fibrocyte differentiation in mono- and co-cultured monocytes. These results indicate that monocytes differentiate into M2 macrophages when in the vicinity of early regenerating and repairing tissue, independent of whether the individual is prone to normal or keloid scar formation.

Reconstructed human keloid models show heterogeneity within keloid scars.

Keloid scars are often described as having an actively growing peripheral margin with a regressing centre. The aim of this study was to examine the possible heterogeneity within keloids and the involvement of different regions within and around keloid scars in the pathogenesis, using an in vitro keloid scar model. In vitro skin models were constructed from keratinocytes and fibroblasts from normal skin and different regions within and around keloid scars: periphery, centre, and (adjacent) surrounding-normal-skin regions. Additionally, fibroblasts were isolated from the superficial-central and deep-central regions of the keloid and combined with central keratinocytes. All keloid regions showed increased contraction compared to normal skin models, particularly in central regions. Myofibroblasts were present in all keloid regions but were more abundant in models containing central-deep keloid fibroblasts. Secretion of anti-fibrotic HGF and extracellular matrix collagen IV gene expression was reduced in the central deep keloid compared to normal skin. No significant differences between peripheral and central regions within keloids were observed for inflammatory cytokine CCL20, CCL27, CXCL8, IL-6 and IL-18 secretion. Parameters for surrounding-normal-skin showed similarities to both non-lesional normal skin and keloids. In conclusion, a simple but elegant method of culturing keloid-derived keratinocytes and fibroblasts in an organotypic 3D scar model was developed, for the dual purpose of studying the underlying pathology and ultimately testing new therapeutics. In this study, these tissue engineered scar models show that the central keloid region shows a more aggressive keloid scar phenotype than the periphery and that the surrounding-normal-skin also shares certain abnormalities characteristic for keloids.

Characterization of In Vitro Reconstructed Human Normotrophic, Hypertrophic, and Keloid Scar Models.

To understand scar pathology, develop new drugs, and provide a platform for personalized medicine, physiologically relevant human scar models are required, which are characteristic of different scar pathologies. Hypertrophic scars and keloids are two types of abnormal scar resulting from unknown abnormalities in the wound healing process. While they display different clinical behavior, differentiation between the two can be difficult-which in turn means that it is difficult to develop optimal therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study was to develop in vitro reconstructed human hypertrophic and keloid scar models and compare these to normotrophic scar and normal skin models to identify distinguishing biomarkers. Keratinocytes and fibroblasts from normal skin and scar types (normotrophic, hypertrophic, keloid) were used to reconstruct skin models. All skin models showed a reconstructed differentiated epidermis on a fibroblast populated collagen-elastin matrix. Both abnormal scar types showed increased contraction, dermal thickness, and myofibroblast staining compared to normal skin and normotrophic scar. Notably, the expression of extracellular matrix associated genes showed distinguishing profiles between all scar types and normal skin (hyaluronan synthase-1, matrix-metalloprotease-3), between keloid and normal skin (collagen type IV), between normal scar and keloid (laminin α1), and between keloid and hypertrophic scar (matrix-metalloprotease-1, integrin α5). Also, inflammatory cytokine and growth factor secretion (CCL5, CXCL1, CXCL8, CCL27, IL-6, HGF) showed differential secretion between scar types. Our results strongly suggest that abnormal scars arise from different pathologies rather than simply being on different ends of the scarring spectrum. Furthermore, such normal skin and scar models together with biomarkers, which distinguish the different scar types, would provide an animal free, physiologically relevant scar diagnostic and drug testing platform for the future.