ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The Adjunctive Role of Botulinum Toxin A in Wound Healing and Scar Management.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWound healing is a complex process involving hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Chronic wounds (persisting beyond 6 weeks) and pathological scarring pose significant clinical challenges. These conditions not only impair patient quality of life but also impose heavy economic burdens on healthcare systems. BoNT/A has been widely studied and shows promise in promoting wound healing, reducing pathological scarring, and improving chronic wounds. However, the existing evidence base largely consists of low-level studies, including animal models, case reports, and small clinical trials. While these studies show positive outcomes, their efficacy and long-term safety need to be validated through high-quality large-scale clinical trials. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of current evidence and emphasize the need for further research to provide more robust support.
objectiveTo comprehensively review the potential roles and underlying mechanisms of BoNT/A in promoting wound healing, preventing pathological scarring, and treating chronic wounds, aiming to provide theoretical insights for clinical applications.
methodsThis review synthesizes existing literature on BoNT/A, focusing on its biological mechanisms in wound healing, including effects on inflammation, angiogenesis, fibroblast activity, and extracellular matrix (ECM) regulation. It also summarizes clinical evidence and combination therapies involving BoNT/A for adverse wound outcomes. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using the terms "botulinum toxin A", "wound healing", "scar", and "chronic wounds". Publications from the past ten years were prioritized, with earlier landmark studies included when relevant. Both preclinical and clinical evidence was considered to provide a comprehensive overview.
resultsBoNT/A exerts multifaceted effects: it inhibits inflammatory responses by reducing mediators like IL-6 and substance P; promotes angiogenesis via HIF-1α/VEGF and nitric oxide pathways; modulates fibroblast activity by suppressing TGF-β1/Smad and ERK signaling to reduce abnormal collagen deposition; and improves wound microenvironment by reducing tension and regulating sweat/sebum secretion. Combination therapies (e.g., with steroids, lasers, or hyaluronic acid) enhance efficacy in scarring and chronic wound treatment.
conclusionBoNT/A has been widely studied and most reports suggest a favorable short-term safety profile; however, current evidence is predominantly low-level (animal studies, case reports, small series) and all wound-care uses remain off-label, underscoring the need for adequately powered randomized trials and long-term safety data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42228068What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.