From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Pathology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.
This article is supported by the Pathology task force (marked as Low-importance).

Orthovoltage radiotherapy[edit]

"Radiation therapy — Electron beam radiation can be used but often not go deep enough to affect internal organs. Orthovoltage radiation is more penetrating and slightly more effective. There have not been any reports of this causing any form of cancer in many years of use, but it is very expensive. Radiation treatments may reduce scar formation if they are used soon after a surgery, during the time a surgical wound is healing."

Confusion about electron and orthovoltage treatments. Electrons generally much more penetrating than orthovoltage, but need skin bolus to be effective. Suggest cutting the first two sentences altogether. It is incorrect to state that orthovoltage RT is very expensive- probably the quickest and easiest of any radiotherapy treatments.Jellytussle 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


i'm going to likely replace the picture at the top of the page, mainly because where it says "acne." That is actually a sebaceous cyst. i know it's awfully nitpicky, but this is an encyclopedia, accuracy should be a priority. Dreamer.redeemer 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, why does the picture have to be so grotesque? I almost lost my lunch when I opened this page. (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an academic hazard when studying diseases. (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Blinky

Ethnic dimension[edit]

Why is no one mentioning that keloids are known to be much more prevalent in those of African descent?

My fault. Some actually did mention the ethnic dimension. Feel free to either delete my edit to the article (i.e., "Incidence") or merge it with what was already there.

-Actually, whoever wrote up the former racial classifications of keloid incidences is a little confused with the differences between racial background and skin color. Not all Asians and Africans are dark skinned. You can be Asian or African and have a light complexion (Zhang Ziyi and Rosa Parks are two famous examples of light skinned Asians and Africans: these two celebrity personalities are in fact just as or even lighter skinned than many people of European descent). The images provided in the picture are of people who are extremely light skinned as well. Since the images are authentic, Keloid skin must affect individuals regardless of their skin color- it's a gene that increases the incidence. The argument that geographical ethnic origin could play a part in keloid skin is valid, but I'd prefer to see a more culturally aware understanding of it.

Clarification please: A sentence in the current revision is "It is speculated that people who possess any degree of African descent, regardless of skin color, may be especially susceptible to keloid occurrences." According to Mitochondrial Eve, a common ancestor of all humans comes from Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa. As such, all humans are of African descent and the quoted sentence makes little sense. Migration patters are available at Recent single-origin hypothesis samwaltz 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the anonymous edit I find the phrase "There is a fifteen times higher frequency of occurrence in highly pigmented people" bizarre in the extreme, true though it may be. It should have a citation at least, and a clarification of language would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


The article indicates that keloids can be "pink to flesh-colored or red to dark brown". What color of flesh is meant? Pburka 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It isn't clear from that description, but keloids are generally as dark or darker than the natural skin tone. (As opposed to other kinds of scarring or non-infected swellings, which are often paler). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trxi (talkcontribs) 12:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the color of flesh belonging to that person. It makes enough sense to me. estrieluv 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Natural" treatments?[edit]

I'm no expert, but I do not believe that applying a warm rag (or teabag) to a keloid for five minutes would produce any effect. If it did, no one would have keloids anymore. The "tea tree oil" sentence is also suspect in my view. 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the way its worded is unencyclopedic. Makes it sound like an instruction manual. 02:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm removing of those. It's due to the common mis-naming of excessive swelling around piercing sites as "keloids" by ignorant piercers, when most of the time it's hypertrophic scarring. Trxi (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of the repeat mentions of ScarAway, which makes parts of the article seem like an advertisement for this product, especially without appropriate literature backing the claims of its efficacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, and surely ScarAway is doing something other than applying it's brand name - unless the name works as a placebo. (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would propose the removal of all of the treatment section except for the claims that are backed up with references. It has clearly been hijacked by someone selling silicone sheets - almost every description of a treatment has been appended with a claim that it is inferior to silicone sheeting, or that it should be used with silicone sheeting. Melaena (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


What's with this line? : "5FU - Combination of steriods and anticancer drugs. A plastic surgeon in NY performs this treatment <33333" - an external link to a plastic surgeon right within the text, and a <333 tag? Not my idea of a credible Wikipedia page.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

How about including cortisone injections? I don't know how well tested they are yet, but from personal anecdote they appear to have worked at least once! Zoeb (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From my personal experience I have found benefit from meat tenderizer. I make a paste with water, apply it to the skin, then cover it with a Band-Aid and let stay there for a day. It levels out the lesion, but it eventually comes back. (comment made 11/01/2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Not for the squeamish"?[edit]

This title doesn't seem very professional to me (a little Goosebumps-esque). Does anyone have any ideas for how it should be re-written? I can't think of any way to phrase it without it sounding rather silly, although I do acknowledge the need for such a warning.

There is a newly FDA approved treament that involves 'intralesional cryosurgery'. as opposed to topical treaments, this treatment freezes the keloid from the inside out, with very good results and little or no pigment disturbance. Here is a brief video:

You can contact bill at kazmed dot net for more information for your doctor.

Any ideas? Well Drawn Charlie 22:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

hypertrophic or not?[edit]

The first sentence of the article says that a keloid is a type of hypertrophic scar, then later in the same paragraph it says it should not be confused with a hypertrophic scar. It can't be both. Which is it? (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A keloid is NOT the same as a hypertrophic scar.

The difference between a hypertrophic scar and keloid is that the keloid may be bigger than the primarily affected area. It is thereby not the same. My source is the german "Pschyrembel, edition 260". (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Keloids caused by thermal radiation due to extremely exothermic weaponry[edit]

Is this an U.S. American article? ;) One would think it is (though I'm foreign) because there is not ANY word about keloids caused by the thousands of degrees of heat emitted by radioactive sources, such as ... nuclear attacks!! Oh yes. Namely the Hiroshima Maidens come to mind here. See also [[1]] -andy (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Image[edit]

The image at the top of the article seems excessive. I understand (and agree with) wikipedia's policy of not censoring itself based on subjective ideas of "gross" or "obscene", but that image is a disconcerting one that does not seem to effectively illustrate the subject. A less extreme example of keloid scarring would be more helpful for showing what a keloid scar typically is, and would also make it easier on squeamish people; points which are both strengthened by the fact that it's at the top of the article. Maybe it should be moved further down, and replaced with one that better illustrates keloid scarring? Unless I'm mistaken about keloid scars. Are they always huge and disgusting like that? The2crowrox (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't quite loose my lunch - but then I don't really have that oh-so-pleasant sounding reaction of visually-induced-gastric-emptying.
I'd also say that a picture on Wikipedia should aim to reflect the most common form in a case where there is a great variation, such as with scarring. (I'm sure there's some editorial policy that has a name that's overly-lawyerly-sounding-but-undertandable.. That I don't know of.) This is along the lines of the question are they always huge and disgusting. That is a reasonable question - maybe for someone who got burned and is wondering whether they should go to the trouble of finding a doctor who can design a named-patient protocol of various skin-cell-differentiation factors..
Anyway, the most common type of keloid scar that I'd think would be encountered (though I'm not a ER trauma person..) would be the the type of small scar that forms over a burn or deep cut. (like mine, that was a stupid but small table-saw accident - about an inch long by 1/8-1/4 inch wide, but not "vertically hypertrophic" or even really "stiff" at all - though I'm not even sure that's really a keloid.) Jimw338 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Internal Keloids[edit]

Keloids can also form inside the body. After spinal surgery, a Keloid can form around the nerve roots, leading to "failed back surgery" syndrome. The Keloid can continue to grow for as long as 18 months post-operatively. In some cases, the scar tissue is so dense that the nerve roots can no longer be observed in an MRI. The resulting scar tissue interferes with the free movement of the nerve exiting the spine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Intentional Keloids[edit]

This entire section is unsourced - no inline citations and nothing in the references that seems to back up the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like these people are intentionally giving themselves scars, but no one has any say over whether their body's scars will become keloids or not. This whole section should probably be removed. Zoeb (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Treatments section[edit]

I need a suggestion how I can get help for treatment of Keloid for my mother. anybody here to help me? Plz advice through <>

Merge discussion[edit]

I propose Keloid removal be merged into this article. I don't see how a separate article is justified at this point.--Taylornate (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)