Scar prevention, treatment and stretch marks

First posted October 16, NCT07878390 describes a University of Missouri randomized comparison of SYLKE silk-fibroin dressing against Dermabond Prineo or paper tape after abdominoplasty/panniculectomy. It is not yet recruiting, with 100 participants planned. Within each participant, incision portions receive different dressings.

The primary outcome is patient/observer scar quality, assessed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months; adhesive-related skin injury, blistering, irritation, infection and other wound complications are also tracked. This addresses prevention and appearance of new surgical scars, not removal of existing scars. There are no efficacy or safety results.

Planning limitations and U.S. status: Structured masking is listed as none, while the narrative describes an assessor blinded to allocation; do not present blinding as settled. Estimated dates are November 1, 2026 start, September 1, 2027 primary completion and March 1, 2028 final completion. The one-year scar follow-up and primary estimate need reconciliation as enrollment develops. A new U.S. trial registration does not establish superior scar prevention or a new product clearance.

Remaining gaps: Read current canonical README, HOW_THIS_WORKS, WATCHLIST, catalog, state, LATEST, MILESTONES, LANDSCAPE and this entire topic page. Search window September 5–October 16 preserves overlap from September 12 full successful check; October 14–16 changes prioritized and all saved October 13 material deduplicated. Retrieved every page of bounded ClinicalTrials.gov discovery (246 returned records) and all 11 named records. Retrieved records were selectively appraised; incidental matches excluded. Do not advance full successful-check timestamp.; New October 16 SYLKE versus Prineo/paper-tape randomized surgical-dressing trial directly tracks scar quality and adhesive injury; planned research, no outcomes.; SCARFREE-001 NCT07488988 remains not yet recruiting, 12 planned, October 2026 estimated start, August/November 2028 primary/final estimates; October 5 registry refresh already saved. Do not infer dosing from the elapsed portion of October or from informal descriptions calling studies ongoing.; Newly surfaced burn shock-wave paper DOI10.1016/j.burns.2026.108116 was electronically published months earlier despite November issue; not a current conference result. No new alert. ScarASC NCT07635875 surfaced as a candidate but its full original record/publication was not appraised; retain a follow-up gap.; Full stretch-mark/device inventory, original international registries, mature scar-remodeling trials and complete safety/functional-outcome appraisal remain incomplete.

Informal-source coverage: October 13 comment in a FUT-scar thread speculates about verteporfin scarless regeneration; October 7 hydrogel discussion extrapolates from research. These are uncontrolled/animal-derived interpretations rather than new human efficacy; sourcing instructions excluded. Existing experimental reports were not treated as formal trial outcomes. No selected new status change.

Full coverage record.

Source date: September 27, 2026; newly appraised October 9. Peer-reviewed accepted paper, not a new October study completion.

NCT04506255 randomized which half of an abdominal donor-site scar received silicone tape after breast reconstruction. Forty-one adults were randomized; tape began two weeks postoperatively for ten weeks. Observer POSAS favored taped halves at three, six and twelve months (p=.0005, .0025 and .029), and patient scores favored tape through six months.

Limitations and safety: Six participants were lost to follow-up and 22 discontinued, primarily for wound-related complications. The reported benefit is per-protocol; this severe attrition can select unusually adherent, uncomplicated wounds. Numerical between-side effect sizes, uncertainty intervals and complete adverse-event attribution were not recovered. Wound complications cannot be assigned to silicone without the full report. This concerns scar prevention/appearance after one surgical setting, not erasing established scars or treating stretch marks. No new U.S. authorization is established. Next: complete data and independent replication with better retention; no announced date.

Original accepted publication.

Source date: October 2, 2026; newly appraised October 9.

Sixteen people with hypertrophic burn scars received three monthly procedures in three scar segments: CO₂ laser plus injected botulinum toxin, laser alone, and laser plus topically delivered toxin. At three months after the last procedure, mean VSS scores were 3.50, 4.44 and 4.19, respectively, from 8.38 at baseline. The between-group total percentage-change comparison was p=.051; pliability differed (p=.002). Strong within-segment improvements do not establish the add-on's superiority.

Limitations and safety: Although called randomized, methods assign treatments to fixed segment positions, raising allocation bias. No matched registry, confidence intervals, comprehensive adverse-event counts or durable functional outcomes were recovered. All 16 completed; side effects were monitored but usable event totals were not supplied. The paper's “superior” conclusion exceeds the total-score evidence. Scar sections are not independent patients, and burn scars are distinct from surgical prevention, keloids or stretch marks. No new U.S. botulinum scar indication. Next: prospectively registered randomized replication with complete harms and longer follow-up, undated.

Original full publication.

Remaining gaps: Read the current assigned topic and canonical scope/state. Named original registry records refreshed; all pages of broad ClinicalTrials.gov discovery for September 5–October 9 were retrieved (182 records, with incidental matches excluded). This honors the seven-day overlap from the saved September 12 full successful check.; Europe PMC original-literature discovery again returned HTTP 503. Targeted primary publisher, sponsor and conference searches were performed, but the worldwide paper/regulator/procedure and original-audio census remains incomplete. Preserve last_successful_check_utc.; SCARFREE still not yet recruiting, with October 2026/August–November 2028 estimates already captured. Geneva verteporfin and siSPARC remain stale/not-yet-recruiting or unknown. October 1 Syntara expansion and local-reaction/null clinical findings were deduplicated.; New October 3 CO2-versus-microplasma-RF hypertrophic-scar abstract PMID42828438 has domain-specific short-term changes but lacks participant count and co-primary score effects; full paper appraisal remains a gap, no broad efficacy/zero-harm claim. October 9 retrospective disclosure NCT07868445 lists a completed 30-person laser/exosome-versus-HA acne-scar study with June–September 2025 dates and no posted results; narrative superiority wording was not treated as an outcome table. Full stretch-mark and rare-harm census incomplete.

Informal-source coverage: Saved August26 r/verteporfin https://www.reddit.com/r/verteporfin/comments/1vypnsk/verteporfin_status_upcoming_trials_and/ and recent formal-trial searches found no new documented dosing/efficacy claim. Unregulated/off-label self-experimentation and anecdotes were not converted into trial outcomes. Full investor recordings and podcast originals incomplete; no new rumor selected.

Full coverage record.

Source/event date: October 5, 2026 registry posting; update submitted October 1.

SCARFREE-001 (NCT07488988) remains not yet recruiting. The refreshed primary record replaces the earlier elapsed June start/February 2028 completion estimates with an estimated October 2026 start, August 2028 primary completion and November 2028 final completion. A trial mirror incorrectly labels October 1 as a completed start; the primary record gives only a month and labels it estimated.

This Danish Phase 2 within-person randomized saline-controlled study plans 12 adults undergoing abdominoplasty, with three verteporfin doses tested in incision segments and open biopsy wounds. Scar quality is assessed at three months; participants and outcome assessors are masked while the administering surgeon is unmasked. No efficacy or safety results are posted. Multiple wound observations do not become 96 independent patients. Prevention of new scars, established-scar removal and stretch marks remain distinct. Verteporfin’s existing ophthalmic use does not establish a U.S. intradermal scar-prevention indication. Next: verify actual recruitment/start; August/November 2028 are registry estimates, not publication promises.

Original registry.

Source date: October 2, 2026 first posting, updated October 5. Reported actual completion: March 21, 2025.

NCT07854470 describes topical ON101 after lower-extremity fracture fixation in 30 adults: 20 receiving ON101 and 10 standard care, with Vancouver Scar Scale and photographic measures through 16 weeks. No results are posted. The narrative describes a prospective evaluator-masked controlled study, while structured design fields say single group and no masking; dates in the narrative also differ from structured actual dates. These inconsistencies require clarification before efficacy or controlled-design claims are adopted. Early scar prevention after fracture surgery is not erasure of established scars or a stretch-mark therapy. No new U.S. scar indication is established. Next: original protocol/paper, allocation details, wound complications and durable appearance/function outcomes; date unknown.

Original registry.

Source/event date: 2026-10-01. Evidence: Sponsor announcement; blinded trial progress and exploratory pilot.

Syntara is expanding the phase 1b SNT-9465 topical pan-LOX-inhibitor study of hypertrophic sternotomy scars from 20 to 30 participants and adding The Skin Hospital in Sydney. Initial recruitment is only nearing completion, so the earlier Q3 target should not be marked achieved. Active-versus-placebo comparisons within scars remain blinded; the sponsor says expansion was not driven by efficacy data. Topline results are now forecast for Q1 2027.

Separately, six participants completed 12 weeks in the exploratory SNT-6302 SATELLITE keloid study. A vascular-area-density biomarker changed, but there was no observed difference in POSAS scar scores or stiffness at week 12. Eight participants discontinued because of mild, reversible local reactions, mainly erythema/pruritus after at least a month. The announcement does not establish a total denominator suitable for a discontinuation percentage. Follow-up continues to nine months. These are investigational approaches, not demonstrated scar erasure or U.S.-approved treatments. October 1 sponsor announcement.

Next milestone: SNT-9465 topline Q1 2027 sponsor forecast; SNT-6302 nine-month follow-up, calendar date not specified.

October 1 sponsor announcement.

Source date: 2026-09-14. Evidence: peer-reviewed randomized within-person study.

A multi-day hydrocolloid bandage accelerated healing of small laser-created wounds compared with a daily standard bandage or uncovered wounds. Thirty-six adults, skin types II–III. Median healing: 6.9 versus 11.9 versus 11.8 days, respectively; hydrocolloid comparisons p<.001. Day-28 scar-score change: 0.3, 0.6 and 2.1 (higher worse); both dressings beat uncovered wounds. A hydrocolloid-versus-standard scar advantage was not established by the reported significance tests.

Limitations: Sponsor-associated study; 28-day experimental forearm wounds, excluding keloid/hypertrophic-scar history. This supports early wound care, not erasing established scars or preventing long-term surgical scars across skin types. No effect-size confidence intervals recovered.

Safety: Treatment-emergent events occurred in 94.4% across the full experimental-wound study: erythema 77.8%, rash 30.6%, pruritus 5.6%; no serious events. Participants had eight randomized wound treatments, of which this paper reports three. These totals cannot be attributed specifically to hydrocolloid dressings.

U.S. status: Existing commercial dressings; no new approval.

Next milestone: Longer-term scar outcomes and broader skin-type studies have no announced date.

Original open-access trial.

Source date: 2026-09-10. Event date: 2026-09-10. Evidence: peer-reviewed randomized human study; abstract appraised.

Scar-directed dry needling improved tissue compliance at some measurement depths, but not scar pain or quality of life. NCT06033430 / IRCT20130409012953N4: 80 participants, assessor-blinded, scar-directed versus minimal needling away from the scar; both arms received taping and infrared therapy. Follow-up was two weeks. At 10-mm indentation, follow-up force difference was −9.84 N (95% CI −14.60 to −5.07). Other depth/time combinations included null results.

Limitations: Mechanical compliance is not scar disappearance or patient-visible improvement. Pain analysis included only 28 people and exploratory knee-flexion analysis 14. Clinical importance and durability remain uncertain; registry is stale/unknown rather than current proof of trial status.

Safety: Complete adverse-event counts were not present in the reviewed abstract.

U.S. status: No new U.S. drug or device authorization announced.

Next milestone: Longer clinical and patient-reported follow-up undated.

Original abstract; Original DOI; Registry.

Source date: 2026-09-21. Event date: 2026-09-21. Evidence: peer-reviewed prospective uncontrolled human study; original abstract appraised.

A 26-person study reports short-term improvements with a combination of radiofrequency, microneedles and milk-derived nanovesicles. Single-center, open-label hypertrophic-scar study: microplasma RF plus poly-L-lactic-acid microneedles and topical milk-derived bioactive nanovesicles for 12 weeks. VSS, patient POSAS, stiffness, thickness and imaging markers improved from baseline.

Limitations: No control and three combined components; neither causal efficacy nor the nanovesicles’ contribution is isolated. Numerical effect sizes, full protocol and matched registry were not recovered. This is not evidence of erasing scars or long-term benefit.

Safety: Mild transient reactions and no serious/systemic events were reported; 26 participants and 12 weeks cannot establish rare or long-term safety.

U.S. status: No U.S. authorization for this scar protocol verified.

Next milestone: Controlled replication and longer follow-up undated.

Original abstract; Publisher DOI.

The University Hospital Geneva proof-of-concept study NCT06944249 is a registered Phase 1/2 randomized, evaluator-blinded comparison of local verteporfin with saline, with estimated enrollment of 24. The primary registry's indexed record still says not yet recruiting, last updated April 25, 2025. Its estimated primary completion of April 30, 2026 and completion of July 31, 2026 have elapsed without a verified status refresh or posted result. These dates cannot establish that the study ran or finished.

This is a useful human test of local YAP1 inhibition, but no clinical scar-prevention benefit is established here. Verteporfin's existing ophthalmic use does not establish approval or safety for injecting surgical wounds. Next: verify recruitment and a revised timetable; there is no dependable result-release date.

SCARFREE-001 — registry gap resolved September 14, 2026. The primary record, NCT07488988, first/last posted March 23, 2026, describes a Phase 2 study in 12 planned abdominoplasty participants at Odense University Hospital. Each participant receives three verteporfin concentrations and saline in different closed-incision areas and small open biopsy wounds, with scar assessments at three months. The record still says not yet recruiting: its June 2026 start estimate has elapsed, and February 2028 completion remains an estimate, not a promised readout. No results are posted. This resolves the earlier access gap without establishing that dosing began or that verteporfin prevents scars.

Syntara's July 1, 2026 sponsor update describes a Phase 1b, randomized, double-blind, within-scar placebo comparison in 20 adults with sternotomy scars aged 6–24 months. Sixty percent had started treatment. This topical pan-lysyl-oxidase inhibitor targets scar remodeling; high baseline LOX activity is mechanistic context, not an efficacy result. The treatment course is three months.

Current update, October 1, 2026: The still-blinded study is expanding from 20 to 30 participants; initial recruitment is nearing completion, not verified complete. Next: topline Q1 2027, superseding the earlier 2026 forecast. A directly matched registry identifier remains unverified; no U.S. scar indication is established. Full update and sponsor source.

The Fiona Wood Foundation/University of Western Australia SATELLITE Phase 1c study began dosing in July 2025: up to 20 adults, a placebo run-in, three months of topical treatment, and a controlled component for people with multiple keloids. Outcomes include scar volume, stiffness, pain and itch. Earlier established-scar work showed tissue changes, which are not proof of scar disappearance. Trial announcement

October 1 update: Six participants completed the treatment course; eight stopped for local reactions. No observed clinical scar improvement was reported at week 12. Next: nine-month follow-up, with no calendar release date specified. No U.S. scar indication or directly matched SATELLITE registry identifier was verified. Full update and source.

Peer-reviewed randomized study, newly reviewed September 14. NCT02070809 compared an intraoperatively prepared autologous epidermal-stem-cell-enriched suspension added to acellular dermal matrix plus split-thickness skin grafting against the same grafting without the cell suspension. It enrolled 232 patients with full-thickness defects associated with scars, ulcers or burns at one Chinese center, including children and adults.

At six months, 212 completers had scar assessments: median Vancouver Scar Scale scores were 3 versus 6 on a 0–13 scale, where lower is better. Complete wound closure at two weeks occurred in 80/120 (66.7%) versus 61/112 (54.5%); the adjusted odds ratio was 1.87 (95% CI 1.06–3.28), while the unadjusted comparison was not statistically significant. Wound recurrence did not significantly differ: 7/110 versus 11/104 at three months. The association between early closure and lower recurrence is not itself a randomized treatment effect.

Authors reported no intervention-related adverse events through six months. Limitations include per-protocol analyses, one center, prolonged enrollment, no patient-reported scar outcomes and uncertain longer-term durability. The paper describes study conduct during 2014–2023, while the current registry lists December 2024 completion; the discrepancy remains unresolved. This is wound-reconstruction evidence, not erasure of ordinary cosmetic scars. U.S. authorization for this protocol and a next results date were not established. Original open-access paper, full-text archive.

A 2026 peer-reviewed randomized study, NCT05461755, compared fractional radiofrequency, topical tretinoin, their combination and untreated areas within 20 people with mature white stretch marks; 19 completed follow-up. At 20 weeks, the combination improved patient-reported scores versus control, but blinded observer differences were not statistically significant. Most participants were women with lighter skin types, limiting generalization. This is evidence of possible modest improvement, not removal or prevention. Original study

Next: larger controlled studies, longer follow-up and results across skin tones; no reliable next date. Track mature white and early red stretch marks separately, and distinguish specific device authorization from authorization of an off-label drug/device combination. Acne-scar prevention also overlaps the acne topic.