ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Clinical Efficacy of Local Injection of Compound Betamethasone Versus Triamcinolone Acetonide in the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars: A Retrospective Analysis of 126 Patients.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHypertrophic scars (HTS) are common complications of wound healing characterized by excessive fibroblast proliferation and collagen deposition. HTS causes local elevation, pruritus, and pain, significantly impacting aesthetics and quality of life. While triamcinolone acetonide (TA) and compound betamethasone (CB) are standard treatments, direct comparative studies regarding their efficacy and recurrence rates remain limited.
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate over 6 months of local injection of TA and CB monotherapy in the treatment of HTS.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 126 patients with HTS who received intralesional injection therapy at our hospital between December 2021 and December 2024. Patients were divided into the TA group (n = 63) and the CB group (n = 63) based on the injected drug. All patients were observed during treatment and followed for at least 6 months to monitor adverse reactions and recurrence. Scar assessment was performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), combined with high-frequency ultrasonography to measure scar thickness changes. Clinical efficacy was evaluated based on the percentage reduction in VSS scores.
resultsBaseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Both CB and TA significantly reduced VSS scores and ultrasonographically measured scar thickness in patients with HTS; however, the CB group exhibited greater reductions in both VSS scores and scar thickness compared with the TA group. Evaluation of clinical efficacy revealed a total effective rate of 93.65% in the CB group versus 80.95% in the TA group. The incidence of adverse reactions was similar between the two groups, primarily consisting of local skin atrophy, pigmentation changes, and telangiectasia. The 6-month recurrence rate was significantly lower for CB (3.17%) than for TA (15.87%, p = 0.015).
conclusionBoth CB and TA intralesional injections are effective in improving VSS scores, reducing scar thickness, and achieving high clinical efficacy rates in patients with HTS. However, CB demonstrates superior therapeutic outcomes and a significantly lower recurrence rate compared with TA, supporting its wider clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.