Scholarlink

Background <p>Scarring, a form of tissue fibrosis, is an unavoidable outcome of wound healing and can lead to cosmetic, functional, and psychological burdens. While both surgical and non-surgical treatments are available, non-invasive topical therapies are generally more acceptable to patients and easier to maintain over the long-term. Despite the availability of various anti-scar products targeting inflammation, hydration, and mechanical tension, there is a lack of comparative data on their individual and combined efficacy. Therefore, evidence-based guidance is needed to optimize scar prevention strategies.</p> Methods <p>Full-thickness linear wounds were established on the dorsal skin of C57BL/6 mice. After re-epithelialization, mice were randomly assigned to receive one of eleven single treatments or one of four combination regimens over a 14-day period. Scar width measurements, histological assessments, and immunohistochemical analyses targeting TGF-β1, α-SMA, and collagen type I and type III were conducted on postoperative day 28.</p> Results <p>All single therapies reduced scar width compared to the control, with Centella asiatica–chitosan and tension reducer groups showing the most notable outcomes. Combination therapies, particularly triple-combination strategies (ointment + silicone-based product + mechanical interventions), achieved superior scar inhibition and more favorable molecular profiles, including reduced TGF-β1, α-SMA, collagen type I expression, and elevated collagen type III levels. These benefits appeared to reflect complementary and possibly synergistic mechanisms across pharmacologic, silicone-based, and mechanical pathways, rather than simple additivity.</p> Conclusion <p>Both single and combination interventions exhibited measurable anti-scar effects, but triple-combination strategies—especially those integrating biochemical and biomechanical modulation—produced the most significant improvements. These findings support the clinical adoption of mechanism-guided combination therapies for optimized scar prevention and treatment.</p> Level of Evidence III <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Evaluation of Single and Combination Pharmacologic and Device-Based Anti-scar Therapies in a Murine Linear Wound Model

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月20日

查看全文
  • Yi Wang,
  • Kai Guo,
  • Ying Li,
  • Wan-Yi Zhao,
  • Zhang-Rui Wu,
  • Chun-Ye Chen,
  • Zi-Xuan Feng,
  • Xin-Cao Zhong,
  • Xiao-Ying Lin,
  • Wei-Qiang Tan

摘要

Background

Scarring, a form of tissue fibrosis, is an unavoidable outcome of wound healing and can lead to cosmetic, functional, and psychological burdens. While both surgical and non-surgical treatments are available, non-invasive topical therapies are generally more acceptable to patients and easier to maintain over the long-term. Despite the availability of various anti-scar products targeting inflammation, hydration, and mechanical tension, there is a lack of comparative data on their individual and combined efficacy. Therefore, evidence-based guidance is needed to optimize scar prevention strategies.

Methods

Full-thickness linear wounds were established on the dorsal skin of C57BL/6 mice. After re-epithelialization, mice were randomly assigned to receive one of eleven single treatments or one of four combination regimens over a 14-day period. Scar width measurements, histological assessments, and immunohistochemical analyses targeting TGF-β1, α-SMA, and collagen type I and type III were conducted on postoperative day 28.

Results

All single therapies reduced scar width compared to the control, with Centella asiatica–chitosan and tension reducer groups showing the most notable outcomes. Combination therapies, particularly triple-combination strategies (ointment + silicone-based product + mechanical interventions), achieved superior scar inhibition and more favorable molecular profiles, including reduced TGF-β1, α-SMA, collagen type I expression, and elevated collagen type III levels. These benefits appeared to reflect complementary and possibly synergistic mechanisms across pharmacologic, silicone-based, and mechanical pathways, rather than simple additivity.

Conclusion

Both single and combination interventions exhibited measurable anti-scar effects, but triple-combination strategies—especially those integrating biochemical and biomechanical modulation—produced the most significant improvements. These findings support the clinical adoption of mechanism-guided combination therapies for optimized scar prevention and treatment.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.