Farokh Forghani Siamak, Sobouti Behnam, Shahbazi Ardavan, Ghavami Yaser, Ghanooni Parinaz, Vaghardoost Reza
Burn Research Center, Shahid Motahari Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali-Asghar Children Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2024 Sep 25;38:111. doi: 10.47176/mjiri.38.111. eCollection 2024.
Treatment of hypertrophic burn scars is challenging. Intralesional injection of corticosteroids has been the first line of treatment. Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) and Bleomycin (BLE) are standard therapeutic options. We conducted a comparative study to measure the effects of BLE and TA on hypertrophic burn scars.
In this clinical trial, we enrolled 25 patients with hypertrophic burn scars in this study. In each patient, two adjacent affected areas on the body were randomly selected for intralesional injection of TA and BLE. The size of the burn scars was between 10 and 40 cm2 (square centimeter). The injections were repeated at intervals of four weeks for three periods. Follow-up of patients continued until the end of the fourth month of treatment. We used the Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale system to compare the recovery of each lesion. Means, standard deviation, and p-values comparing the treatment of lesions with BLE and TA using two different scales were reported. Independent samples t-test and paired sample t-test were used to find out a statistically significant difference between BLE and TA treated lesions.
The results showed that the hypertrophic scar scores in BLE and TA lesions were statistically significant from the perspective of patients and physicians ( = 0.035). The mean score of hypertrophic scars in the BLE and TA groups was also statistically significant ( = 0.023). The proportion of individuals who had no side effects after taking BLE and TA was much higher than those who experienced skin pain or hypopigmentation.
Intralesional BLE injection is more effective than TA in treating hypertrophic scars. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to approve these results.
肥厚性烧伤瘢痕的治疗具有挑战性。病灶内注射皮质类固醇一直是一线治疗方法。曲安奈德(TA)和博来霉素(BLE)是标准的治疗选择。我们进行了一项对比研究,以衡量BLE和TA对肥厚性烧伤瘢痕的影响。
在这项临床试验中,我们招募了25名患有肥厚性烧伤瘢痕的患者。在每位患者身上,随机选择身体上两个相邻的受影响区域进行TA和BLE的病灶内注射。烧伤瘢痕的面积在10至40平方厘米之间。每隔四周重复注射,共进行三个周期。对患者的随访持续到治疗的第四个月末。我们使用温哥华瘢痕量表以及患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表系统来比较每个病灶的恢复情况。报告了使用两种不同量表比较BLE和TA治疗病灶的均值、标准差和p值。使用独立样本t检验和配对样本t检验来找出BLE和TA治疗病灶之间的统计学显著差异。
结果显示,从患者和医生的角度来看,BLE和TA病灶的肥厚性瘢痕评分具有统计学显著性(=0.035)。BLE和TA组肥厚性瘢痕的平均评分也具有统计学显著性(=0.023)。服用BLE和TA后无副作用的个体比例远高于出现皮肤疼痛或色素减退的个体。
病灶内注射BLE在治疗肥厚性瘢痕方面比TA更有效。需要进行更大样本量的进一步研究来证实这些结果。