Talk:Keloid

message: "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)
thread_title:  Orthovoltage radiotherapy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  picture 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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 121.73.22.245 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic dimension 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flesh-colored 

message: 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. 71.141.232.252 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural" treatments? 

message: What's with this line? : "5FU - Combination of steriods and anticancer drugs. A plastic surgeon in NY performs this treatment constructivesurgery.com/keloid_page.html <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 85.130.104.213 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatments? 

message: 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt_zR7N_Yuk
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)
thread_title:  "Not for the squeamish"? 

message: 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?  75.82.133.73 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hypertrophic or not? 

message: 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 [] -andy 77.7.117.26 (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keloids caused by thermal radiation due to extremely exothermic weaponry 

message: 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 174.117.33.114 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Keloids 

message: 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 184.99.105.18 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional Keloids 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: While I understand the need for visual aids when describing a condition I don’t think it’s very encyclopedic to include 24 pictures of keloids that I presume someone though looked interesting. It’s also annoying to scroll through on mobile. 2601:589:4D80:C3E0:C5F:BDC3:ED99:7886 (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: This entire section smacks of racism and regionalism.   You single out people of color by profiling. So a person of Arabic or Spanish heritage who is from Sicily will NOT get Keloids because he/she is of European American nationality?   Your process is unacceptable, not only for Wikipedia, but for EVERY modern category and standard. Get this section re-written. 2600:1702:1720:D80:F5CD:2679:61DC:AF35 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics