Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre (location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Plastic Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre (location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Exp Dermatol. 2021 Jan;30(1):146-161. doi: 10.1111/exd.14121. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
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.
尽管增生性瘢痕和瘢痕疙瘩都会产生过多的瘢痕组织,但瘢痕疙瘩的特点是其在原始伤口边界之外广泛生长,而增生性瘢痕则没有这种情况。增生性瘢痕和瘢痕疙瘩是否是同一硬币的两面,或者实际上是不同的实体,仍然是一个争论的话题。然而,在同一研究中对两者进行适当的比较理想情况下是在同一研究中进行的,但这是例外而不是规则。出于这个原因,本综述的目的是总结和评估所有研究中同时研究了增生性瘢痕和瘢痕疙瘩并对其进行比较的出版物。水平生长的存在是瘢痕疙瘩诊断的主要依据,仍然是支持瘢痕疙瘩和增生性瘢痕是不同实体的最强论据,而组织病理学上的区别则不那么明显。瘢痕疙瘩胶原仍然是最强的瘢痕疙瘩参数,但真皮结节和 α-SMA 免疫反应性不仅局限于增生性瘢痕。最终,目前增生性瘢痕和瘢痕疙瘩的差异在性质上主要是定量的,而不是定性的,两种病变中都存在许多相似的异常。尽管如此,存在相似之处并不等同于不存在根本差异,鉴于我们在正常伤口愈合过程中还有很多需要了解的地方,其中一些差异可能尚未被发现。因此,在有新的发现更有力地证明我们的想法之前,似乎有必要继续将增生性瘢痕和瘢痕疙瘩视为不同的实体来进行治疗。