ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Analysis of Risk Factors and Exploration of Treatment for Infected Keloid.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify independent risk factors for keloid infection and explore optimal therapeutic strategies for infected keloids.
methodsA retrospective study included 131 keloid patients (26 infected, 105 non-infected) from two hospitals (July 2021-January 2025). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses screened infection-related risk factors. Efficacy was compared among infected patients treated with complete surgical excision + radiotherapy (n= 12), intralesional injection + radiotherapy (n= 10), and local resection of infectious focus + injection + radiotherapy (n= 4). Outcomes included Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), infection recurrence, keloid recurrence, and complications.
resultsMultivariate logistic regression analysis identified maximum lesion diameter, disease duration and family history of keloids as independent risk factors for keloid infection (all P< 0.05). For infected keloids, the injection group had significantly higher 6-month/12-month POSAS scores, infection recurrence rate (50.0% vs. 0.0%), and keloid recurrence rate (60.0% vs. 16.7%) than the surgery group (all P< 0.05), with all infection recurrences accompanied by keloid recurrence. The local resection group showed 0% infection recurrence and 50.0% keloid recurrence, with no severe complications.
conclusionKeloid patients with large lesions, long disease duration, or positive family history are at high infection risk and require active monitoring. For infected keloids, complete surgical excision + adjuvant radiotherapy is preferred after inflammation control, offering superior long-term efficacy and low recurrence. Local resection + injection + radiotherapy is a feasible alternative for large/inoperable lesions but demands long-term follow-up due to relatively high keloid recurrence. 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42675289What 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.