OBJECTIVE: This scoping review explores strategies for alleviating pain while administering ILCSIs for hypertrophic scarring and keloid management. ILCSI is a second-line treatment for HTSs and a first-line treatment for keloids.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This scoping review included studies where HTSs and keloids were treated with ILCSI and considered diverse demographics and injection methods. This review excludes other methods of corticosteroid drug delivery where injection is not involved and where the pain assessed is unrelated to injection or infiltration of the scar.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: This review systematically searched critical databases from inception to December 2023, including ScienceDirect, PubMed and Web of Science, and handpicked articles traced from available review papers. Only English-language publications focused on pain management during ILCSIs for HTSs and keloids were included. All levels of scientific evidence were considered. An in-depth evaluation of the injection technique, type of analgesia or anaesthesia administered, effectiveness of pain management and overall treatment outcomes was conducted.

CHARTING METHODS: Citations were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet, with three authors screening the titles and abstracts based on inclusion criteria. Decisions were finalised collaboratively, exclusions were documented and results were presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.

RESULTS: 16 prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies, 1 case study and 15 journal articles were included. These studies examined ILCSI for hypertrophic scarring and keloid treatment. No differences in pain intensity between HTSs and keloids were reported. 11 studies systematically explored pain reduction methods such as topical analgesia, cryoanaesthesia, mixing triamcinolone acetonide with local analgesics, slow infiltration techniques, vibration analgesia and needle-free injectors.

STUDY DESIGN: In total, 282 patients with oral submucous fibrosis were treated with topical corticosteroid and oral antioxidant and the ice-cream stick exercise regimen. Patients in subgroups A1, A2, and A3 were additionally given a new MED. Patients in subgroups A1 and B1 patients with interincisal distance (IID) of 20 to 35 mm were managed without any additional therapy; patients in subgroups A2 and B2 with IID of 20 to 35 mm were additionally managed with intralesional injections; and those in subgroups A3 and B3 with IID less than 20 mm were managed surgically. Subjective evaluation of decrease in the oral mucosal burning was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple post hoc analysis were carried out to present the results.

RESULTS: Patients using the MED, that is, subgroups A1, A2, and A3, showed reduction in burning sensation in the range of 64.8% to 71.1% and 27.8% to 30.9%, whereas in subgroups B1, B2, and B3, reduction in burning sensation ranged from 64.7% to 69.9% and from 29.3% to 38.6% after 6 months. The wo-way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant results in changes in initial VAS scores to 6-monthly VAS scores between MED users and non-MED users.