Cutis

The flexible scalpel blade (FSB) is a 2-sided handheld razor blade that serves as a pivotal instrument in certain dermatologic procedures. Its unrivaled sharpness¹ permits pinpoint precision for shave biopsies, excisions of superficial lesions,² scar contouring, and harvesting of split-thickness skin grafts.³ Given its flexibility and long edge, considerable manual dexterity and skill are required to maximize its full potential.

Practice Gap

Prior to practicing on live patients, students on clinical rotation would benefit from in vitro skin simulators to practice correct hand position, FSB control for concave and convex surface cutting, and safety. Prior practice models have included mannequins, tomatoes, and eggplants^.4,5 Here, the authors recommend the use of a banana (genus Musa). In addition to its year-round availability, economic feasibility, simplicity, and portability, the banana has colored skin that well represents the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue, allowing for visual feedback. Furthermore, its contour irregularities simulate convexities and concavities for various anatomic locations. Although the firmness of a yellow-green banana provides immediate tissue feedback, the softness and pliability of a ripe banana simulates the consistency of older skin and the use of appropriate traction.

Tools

To begin, one simply requires a marking pen, banana, and razor blade. Various shapes, including a circle, ellipse, rectangle, trapezoid, triangle, and multilobed lesion are demarcated by students or attendings (Figure 1). Careful removal of the pieces helps students improve dexterity, develop feel for the entire edge of the razor blade, and acquire muscle memory for these skilled movements (Figure 2). Three-dimensional spatial reasoning is honed with practice using the FSB to control appropriate thickness and defect depth while creating a smooth bevel around the entire perimeter, which is important for optimal cosmesis in second intention healing or grafting. The shallower the defect created, the faster the healing and the greater the reduction in contracture. Although downward pressure is important to prevent buttonholing or tearing of the tissue being removed, the angle of the blade relative to the tissue must be assessed at all points, and the alteration in color and fiber orientation signify change in depth of the banana peel.

The Technique

To handle the FSB, one can hold the lateral edges of the blade between the thumb and index finger or between the thumb and middle finger. The thumb and index finger position allows for additional flexible working space and visualization, increased traction by the remaining 3 fingers, and greater ease of removal of lesions with considerable height. The thumb and middle finger hold allows for versatile use of the index finger of the same hand for stabilizing the center of the blade, fixing the tissue on the FSB while it is removed, and sliding the specimen off the FSB. It is important to maintain a fixed distance from the blade to the metacarpals at all times to ensure smooth advancement of the blade and visualization. Beginners can lift the pinky finger of the hand holding the FSB and move the finger up and down to control the angle of the blade.

Practice Implications

Generally, we utilize various techniques of shaving using the FSB. We approach the target lesion 2 to 3 mm from the marked location and slide parallel to the skin surface and perpendicular to the lesion until the epidermis is penetrated. Second, we advance the blade toward the lesion with careful attention paid to the perimeter of the lesion and the points of contact of the FSB. For lesions with hardier consistencies, a sawing motion of the blade is employed, which also requires controlled tilting of the wrist to maintain an even depth and smooth bevel. To cut deeper, flexing the FSB with lateral pressure is helpful. More shallow lesions require the instrument to be flatter and less bowed. When finishing the shave, it is important to start angling the blade upward early, either at the center of the targeted lesion or 2 to 3 mm before the demarcated edge of the skin graft, while applying traction away from the lesion and slight downward pressure with the nondominant hand.

For larger lesions, the perimeter may be more difficult to remove precisely and can be achieved by rotating the blade around the lesion with focus on one point of contact of the FSB to cut and glide through the tissue’s perimeter. To achieve a more exact wound edge and to preclude jagged borders, a No. 15 blade can be used to score the perimeter very superficially to the papillary dermis prior to shave removal. The main disadvantage, however, is that the beveled edge is removed.

In summary, the FSB is an exceptional tool for biopsies, tumor removal, scar contouring, and split-thickness skin grafts. Through the banana practice model, one can attain fine control and reap the benefits of the FSB after meticulous and dedicated training.

The flexible scalpel blade (FSB) is a 2-sided handheld razor blade that serves as a pivotal instrument in certain dermatologic procedures. Its unrivaled sharpness¹ permits pinpoint precision for shave biopsies, excisions of superficial lesions,² scar contouring, and harvesting of split-thickness skin grafts.³ Given its flexibility and long edge, considerable manual dexterity and skill are required to maximize its full potential.

Practice Gap

Prior to practicing on live patients, students on clinical rotation would benefit from in vitro skin simulators to practice correct hand position, FSB control for concave and convex surface cutting, and safety. Prior practice models have included mannequins, tomatoes, and eggplants^.4,5 Here, the authors recommend the use of a banana (genus Musa). In addition to its year-round availability, economic feasibility, simplicity, and portability, the banana has colored skin that well represents the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue, allowing for visual feedback. Furthermore, its contour irregularities simulate convexities and concavities for various anatomic locations. Although the firmness of a yellow-green banana provides immediate tissue feedback, the softness and pliability of a ripe banana simulates the consistency of older skin and the use of appropriate traction.

Tools

To begin, one simply requires a marking pen, banana, and razor blade. Various shapes, including a circle, ellipse, rectangle, trapezoid, triangle, and multilobed lesion are demarcated by students or attendings (Figure 1). Careful removal of the pieces helps students improve dexterity, develop feel for the entire edge of the razor blade, and acquire muscle memory for these skilled movements (Figure 2). Three-dimensional spatial reasoning is honed with practice using the FSB to control appropriate thickness and defect depth while creating a smooth bevel around the entire perimeter, which is important for optimal cosmesis in second intention healing or grafting. The shallower the defect created, the faster the healing and the greater the reduction in contracture. Although downward pressure is important to prevent buttonholing or tearing of the tissue being removed, the angle of the blade relative to the tissue must be assessed at all points, and the alteration in color and fiber orientation signify change in depth of the banana peel.

The Technique

To handle the FSB, one can hold the lateral edges of the blade between the thumb and index finger or between the thumb and middle finger. The thumb and index finger position allows for additional flexible working space and visualization, increased traction by the remaining 3 fingers, and greater ease of removal of lesions with considerable height. The thumb and middle finger hold allows for versatile use of the index finger of the same hand for stabilizing the center of the blade, fixing the tissue on the FSB while it is removed, and sliding the specimen off the FSB. It is important to maintain a fixed distance from the blade to the metacarpals at all times to ensure smooth advancement of the blade and visualization. Beginners can lift the pinky finger of the hand holding the FSB and move the finger up and down to control the angle of the blade.

Practice Implications

Generally, we utilize various techniques of shaving using the FSB. We approach the target lesion 2 to 3 mm from the marked location and slide parallel to the skin surface and perpendicular to the lesion until the epidermis is penetrated. Second, we advance the blade toward the lesion with careful attention paid to the perimeter of the lesion and the points of contact of the FSB. For lesions with hardier consistencies, a sawing motion of the blade is employed, which also requires controlled tilting of the wrist to maintain an even depth and smooth bevel. To cut deeper, flexing the FSB with lateral pressure is helpful. More shallow lesions require the instrument to be flatter and less bowed. When finishing the shave, it is important to start angling the blade upward early, either at the center of the targeted lesion or 2 to 3 mm before the demarcated edge of the skin graft, while applying traction away from the lesion and slight downward pressure with the nondominant hand.

For larger lesions, the perimeter may be more difficult to remove precisely and can be achieved by rotating the blade around the lesion with focus on one point of contact of the FSB to cut and glide through the tissue’s perimeter. To achieve a more exact wound edge and to preclude jagged borders, a No. 15 blade can be used to score the perimeter very superficially to the papillary dermis prior to shave removal. The main disadvantage, however, is that the beveled edge is removed.

In summary, the FSB is an exceptional tool for biopsies, tumor removal, scar contouring, and split-thickness skin grafts. Through the banana practice model, one can attain fine control and reap the benefits of the FSB after meticulous and dedicated training.

The flexible scalpel blade (FSB) is a 2-sided handheld razor blade that serves as a pivotal instrument in certain dermatologic procedures. Its unrivaled sharpness¹ permits pinpoint precision for shave biopsies, excisions of superficial lesions,² scar contouring, and harvesting of split-thickness skin grafts.³ Given its flexibility and long edge, considerable manual dexterity and skill are required to maximize its full potential.

Practice Gap

Prior to practicing on live patients, students on clinical rotation would benefit from in vitro skin simulators to practice correct hand position, FSB control for concave and convex surface cutting, and safety. Prior practice models have included mannequins, tomatoes, and eggplants^.4,5 Here, the authors recommend the use of a banana (genus Musa). In addition to its year-round availability, economic feasibility, simplicity, and portability, the banana has colored skin that well represents the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue, allowing for visual feedback. Furthermore, its contour irregularities simulate convexities and concavities for various anatomic locations. Although the firmness of a yellow-green banana provides immediate tissue feedback, the softness and pliability of a ripe banana simulates the consistency of older skin and the use of appropriate traction.

Tools

To begin, one simply requires a marking pen, banana, and razor blade. Various shapes, including a circle, ellipse, rectangle, trapezoid, triangle, and multilobed lesion are demarcated by students or attendings (Figure 1). Careful removal of the pieces helps students improve dexterity, develop feel for the entire edge of the razor blade, and acquire muscle memory for these skilled movements (Figure 2). Three-dimensional spatial reasoning is honed with practice using the FSB to control appropriate thickness and defect depth while creating a smooth bevel around the entire perimeter, which is important for optimal cosmesis in second intention healing or grafting. The shallower the defect created, the faster the healing and the greater the reduction in contracture. Although downward pressure is important to prevent buttonholing or tearing of the tissue being removed, the angle of the blade relative to the tissue must be assessed at all points, and the alteration in color and fiber orientation signify change in depth of the banana peel.

The Technique

To handle the FSB, one can hold the lateral edges of the blade between the thumb and index finger or between the thumb and middle finger. The thumb and index finger position allows for additional flexible working space and visualization, increased traction by the remaining 3 fingers, and greater ease of removal of lesions with considerable height. The thumb and middle finger hold allows for versatile use of the index finger of the same hand for stabilizing the center of the blade, fixing the tissue on the FSB while it is removed, and sliding the specimen off the FSB. It is important to maintain a fixed distance from the blade to the metacarpals at all times to ensure smooth advancement of the blade and visualization. Beginners can lift the pinky finger of the hand holding the FSB and move the finger up and down to control the angle of the blade.

Practice Implications

Generally, we utilize various techniques of shaving using the FSB. We approach the target lesion 2 to 3 mm from the marked location and slide parallel to the skin surface and perpendicular to the lesion until the epidermis is penetrated. Second, we advance the blade toward the lesion with careful attention paid to the perimeter of the lesion and the points of contact of the FSB. For lesions with hardier consistencies, a sawing motion of the blade is employed, which also requires controlled tilting of the wrist to maintain an even depth and smooth bevel. To cut deeper, flexing the FSB with lateral pressure is helpful. More shallow lesions require the instrument to be flatter and less bowed. When finishing the shave, it is important to start angling the blade upward early, either at the center of the targeted lesion or 2 to 3 mm before the demarcated edge of the skin graft, while applying traction away from the lesion and slight downward pressure with the nondominant hand.

For larger lesions, the perimeter may be more difficult to remove precisely and can be achieved by rotating the blade around the lesion with focus on one point of contact of the FSB to cut and glide through the tissue’s perimeter. To achieve a more exact wound edge and to preclude jagged borders, a No. 15 blade can be used to score the perimeter very superficially to the papillary dermis prior to shave removal. The main disadvantage, however, is that the beveled edge is removed.

In summary, the FSB is an exceptional tool for biopsies, tumor removal, scar contouring, and split-thickness skin grafts. Through the banana practice model, one can attain fine control and reap the benefits of the FSB after meticulous and dedicated training.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common inflammatory skin condition, affecting approximately 15% to 20% of the global population.^1,2 Atopic dermatitis is characterized by a chronic relapsing dermatitis with pruritus, often beginning in infancy or childhood. Atopic dermatitis is caused by a defect in epidermal barrier function, which results in increased transepidermal water loss.¹ The criteria for AD include a pruritic skin condition plus 3 or more of the following: history of involvement of the skin creases, history of asthma or hay fever, history of AD in a first-degree relative (in children), 1-year history of generally dry skin, visible flexural eczema, and an age of onset of less than 2 years. Adults with AD frequently present with hand or facial dermatitis.¹

UV light therapies including narrowband UVB (NB-UVB), UVA1, and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) have all been used as effective treatments of AD.^3,4 UV light is beneficial for AD patients due to its immunomodulatory effects, thickening of the stratum corneum, and the reduction of Staphylococcus aureus in the skin.² Most patients with AD improve with light therapy; however, it is estimated that 1% to 3% of patients with AD will experience a paradoxical worsening of their AD after exposure to UV light.^2,5 This condition is referred to as photosensitive AD and is characterized by a photodistributed rash in patients who fulfill the criteria of AD. Photosensitive AD has a female predominance and generally affects patients with late-onset disease with development of AD after puberty.^2,5 The pathogenesis for the development of photosensitivity in patients with AD who previously tolerated exposure to sunlight is unknown.⁵ We describe a case of photosensitive AD exacerbated by UVB exposure.

Case Report

A 55-year-old Asian woman presented for evaluation of a rash on the head, neck, and arms. She reported that she had developed a pruritic rash with edema after sun exposure at 16 years of age. Since then, the rash has been intermittent and completely resolved at times with periods of decreased sun exposure; however, the rash recently had been persistent and worsening despite practicing strict sun protection with daily sunscreen application, protective clothing, and sun avoidance. She was not taking systemic medications or supplements at the time but was applying high-potency topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors with minimal improvement under the care of a dermatologist.

On physical examination the patient had thin, well-demarcated, erythematous papules and plaques with scaling, primarily on sun-exposed skin on the forehead (Figure 1A), cheeks (Figure 1B), eyelids, upper lip, neck (Figures 1B and 1C), upper chest (Figure 1C), and dorsal aspect of the hands, with excoriated pink papules on the forearms, shoulders, and back. A punch biopsy of the right neck showed spongiotic dermatitis with a perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (Figure 2). Further workup was pursued including complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic profile, liver function panel, Sjögren syndrome antigen A/Sjögren syndrome antigen B test, antinuclear antibody test, human immunodeficiency virus 1/2 antigen/antibody test, hepatitis panel, and mycobacterium tuberculosis test, which were all within reference range. Photodermatosis was suspected and she underwent phototesting including UVA, NB-UVB, and visible light. Phototesting confirmed she had a UVB photosensitivity with a markedly decreased minimal erythema dose (MED) to NB-UVB. The MED to NB-UVB was positive at 24 hours to all tested sites, the lowest of which was 0.135 J/cm². Eczematous changes began to develop at day 6 at doses of 0.945 and 1.080 J/cm². The patient also underwent visible light testing, which was negative. The patient was patch tested for multiple standardized agents as well as personal products, all of which were negative. Subsequent photopatch testing revealed a slightly positive reaction to benzophenone 4, a common ingredient in sunscreens.

The patient was then started on mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone. Repeat MED testing to NB-UVB was performed. Her repeat MED to NB-UVB was determined to be 0.405 J/cm², and hardening commenced at 3 times per week at 70% of the MED (0.2835 J/cm²). She began to flare and develop an eczematous reaction, thus the dose was decreased to 50% of the MED (0.2025 J/cm²), which she tolerated.

Comment

Classification and Clinical Presentation
The literature on photosensitive AD is scant, and this disease entity is rare. Alternative names include photoaggravated AD, photosensitive eczema, and light-exacerbated eczema.⁵ Two main studies have been conducted in recent years that were intended to characterize photosensitive AD. ten Berge et al⁵ conducted a retrospective study of 145 patients with AD that were phototested in 2009. They found that 3% of their total AD patient population had photosensitive AD.⁵ In 2016, Ellenbogen et al² performed a similar single-center retrospective analysis of 17 patients with long-standing AD who suddenly developed photosensitivity.

Patients with photosensitive AD typically present with lesions on sun-exposed skin with coexisting eczematous lesions in sites with a predilection for AD.² In the study conducted by ten Berge et al,⁵ 2 main reaction patterns were observed: erythematous papules with pruritus and an eczematous reaction. The authors suggested one subset of patients demonstrated polymorphous light eruption (PMLE), a common photoinduced eruption thought to represent a delayed-type hypersensitivity, coexisting with AD while the other subset had true photosensitive AD.^5,6 Ellenbogen et al² also found 2 reaction patterns, which they labeled papular (PMLE type) and eczematous (photosensitive AD type). The authors contested the theory of coexisting PMLE in AD because PMLE gets better in the summer with UV radiation hardening.² On the contrary, photosensitive AD worsens with uncontrolled exposure to sunlight. Only with controlled exposure to small doses of UV radiation at a time does this condition improve. Ellenbogen et al² believe both reaction patterns are consistent with photosensitive AD and the PMLE type should be termed papular photosensitive AD type.

Histopathology
The histopathologic findings of photosensitive AD are nonspecific but are characterized by spongiotic dermatitis with a perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate.²

Diagnosis With Phototesting
Phototesting of patients with AD should be considered if there is a suspicion for photosensitivity based on persistent disease despite use of photoprotection and local treatment.^5-7 Patients may not notice a correlation of skin exacerbations with UV exposure, especially if they are only sensitive to UVA, as it is still present on cloudy days and can penetrate glass windows.⁸ Phototesting evaluates the degree of sensitivity to UV light and the specific wavelength eliciting the cutaneous response. Phototesting consists of determining the MED to UVA and UVB, the minimal phototoxic dose for PUVA, and visible light exposure. Further evaluation may include photoprovocation testing or photopatch testing, as these patients can have coexisting photocontact allergies.

The MED is defined as the minimal dose of UV light needed to induce perceptible erythema in exposed skin.⁵ It is dependent on the light source and patient’s skin type, and individual units may vary. To determine the MED to UVA or UVB, 2×2-cm skin fields are irradiated with increasing cumulative UVA/UVB. The dose varies by skin type and it is then read at 24 hours. The majority of patients with photosensitive AD are reported to have a normal MED; however, some studies have reported the MED to be decreased.^5,7-9 ten Berge et al⁵ found 7% of their study participants exhibited a lower MED, as seen in our patient.

The minimal phototoxic dose for PUVA is defined as the least exposure dose of UVA 1 hour after ingestion of 0.4 mg/kg of methoxsalen that produces pink erythema with 4 distinct borders at 48, 72, or 96 hours after ingestion.¹⁰ Visible light exposure is tested using a slide projector as the light source to an approximately 10×5-cm area of skin for 45 minutes. Any immediate or delayed reaction is abnormal and considered positive.¹⁰

Photoprovocation testing has been performed in several studies.^2,5 It consists of exposing an 8-cm area of skin to 80 J/cm² UVA and 10 mJ/cm² UVB, which is read at 24, 48, or 72 hours. A papular or eczematous reaction is considered positive.^2,11

The results of phototesting have varied between studies. ten Berge et al⁵ phototested 107 patients with AD and photosensitivity and 17% were found to be solely sensitive to UVA whereas 67% were found to be sensitive to UVA and UVB. In contrast, Ellenbogen et al² only tested 17 patients with AD and photosensitivity and they found that 56% (9/16) were sensitive to UVA alone while only 44% (7/16) were sensitive to UVA and UVB.

Photopatch testing can help to rule out photosensitivity due to a substance in the presence of UV light. In studies of patients with photosensitive AD (N=125), photocontact reactions occurred in 23% and were predominantly associated with sunscreens, skin care products, and fragrances.^5,12 Photopatch testing is done by placing duplicate sets of patches on nonlesional skin using the Finn Chamber technique. A published list of allergens, which were agreed upon by the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Society for Photodermatology in 2000 are seen in Table 1.¹³ The list contains mainly UV filters and drugs. The patients’ own products also should be tested in addition to the published list of allergens, but a maximum of 30 patches should be placed at one time. The patches are removed at either 24 or 48 hours; some researchers have found greater sensitivity with the 48-hour time period, while others have not found a significant difference.¹⁰ One set of skin fields then is covered with an impermeable occlusive dressing as a control while the other is irradiated with 5 J/cm² of a broad-spectrum UVA light source. UVA fluorescent lamps are the light source of choice because of their widespread availability, reproducible broad spectrum, and beam uniformity.¹⁰ In the study conducted by ten Berge et al,⁵ photopatch testing was performed on 125 patients, and 29 patients were found to be positive to one or more substances. Ellenbogen et al² photopatch tested 5 patients with photosensitive AD and a clinical suspicion of photoallergy; however, all 5 were negative. Our patient underwent traditional patch testing due to clinical suspicion of a coexisting contact allergy, which was negative.

Conclusion

Photosensitive AD is a rare entity characterized by a photodistributed rash and involvement of non–sun-exposed skin. Patients will either have a history of AD or fulfill the criteria of AD. They have positive photoprovocation testing and generally have a normal MED. They may have positive photopatch testing with coexisting photoallergies. Histopathology is nonspecific but shows spongiotic dermatitis with perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Diagnosis is essential, as this disease can be life altering and affect quality of life. Effective treatment options are available, and the therapeutic ladder is based on severity of disease.^2,5

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common inflammatory skin condition, affecting approximately 15% to 20% of the global population.^1,2 Atopic dermatitis is characterized by a chronic relapsing dermatitis with pruritus, often beginning in infancy or childhood. Atopic dermatitis is caused by a defect in epidermal barrier function, which results in increased transepidermal water loss.¹ The criteria for AD include a pruritic skin condition plus 3 or more of the following: history of involvement of the skin creases, history of asthma or hay fever, history of AD in a first-degree relative (in children), 1-year history of generally dry skin, visible flexural eczema, and an age of onset of less than 2 years. Adults with AD frequently present with hand or facial dermatitis.¹

UV light therapies including narrowband UVB (NB-UVB), UVA1, and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) have all been used as effective treatments of AD.^3,4 UV light is beneficial for AD patients due to its immunomodulatory effects, thickening of the stratum corneum, and the reduction of Staphylococcus aureus in the skin.² Most patients with AD improve with light therapy; however, it is estimated that 1% to 3% of patients with AD will experience a paradoxical worsening of their AD after exposure to UV light.^2,5 This condition is referred to as photosensitive AD and is characterized by a photodistributed rash in patients who fulfill the criteria of AD. Photosensitive AD has a female predominance and generally affects patients with late-onset disease with development of AD after puberty.^2,5 The pathogenesis for the development of photosensitivity in patients with AD who previously tolerated exposure to sunlight is unknown.⁵ We describe a case of photosensitive AD exacerbated by UVB exposure.

Case Report

A 55-year-old Asian woman presented for evaluation of a rash on the head, neck, and arms. She reported that she had developed a pruritic rash with edema after sun exposure at 16 years of age. Since then, the rash has been intermittent and completely resolved at times with periods of decreased sun exposure; however, the rash recently had been persistent and worsening despite practicing strict sun protection with daily sunscreen application, protective clothing, and sun avoidance. She was not taking systemic medications or supplements at the time but was applying high-potency topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors with minimal improvement under the care of a dermatologist.

On physical examination the patient had thin, well-demarcated, erythematous papules and plaques with scaling, primarily on sun-exposed skin on the forehead (Figure 1A), cheeks (Figure 1B), eyelids, upper lip, neck (Figures 1B and 1C), upper chest (Figure 1C), and dorsal aspect of the hands, with excoriated pink papules on the forearms, shoulders, and back. A punch biopsy of the right neck showed spongiotic dermatitis with a perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (Figure 2). Further workup was pursued including complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic profile, liver function panel, Sjögren syndrome antigen A/Sjögren syndrome antigen B test, antinuclear antibody test, human immunodeficiency virus 1/2 antigen/antibody test, hepatitis panel, and mycobacterium tuberculosis test, which were all within reference range. Photodermatosis was suspected and she underwent phototesting including UVA, NB-UVB, and visible light. Phototesting confirmed she had a UVB photosensitivity with a markedly decreased minimal erythema dose (MED) to NB-UVB. The MED to NB-UVB was positive at 24 hours to all tested sites, the lowest of which was 0.135 J/cm². Eczematous changes began to develop at day 6 at doses of 0.945 and 1.080 J/cm². The patient also underwent visible light testing, which was negative. The patient was patch tested for multiple standardized agents as well as personal products, all of which were negative. Subsequent photopatch testing revealed a slightly positive reaction to benzophenone 4, a common ingredient in sunscreens.

The patient was then started on mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone. Repeat MED testing to NB-UVB was performed. Her repeat MED to NB-UVB was determined to be 0.405 J/cm², and hardening commenced at 3 times per week at 70% of the MED (0.2835 J/cm²). She began to flare and develop an eczematous reaction, thus the dose was decreased to 50% of the MED (0.2025 J/cm²), which she tolerated.

Comment

Classification and Clinical Presentation
The literature on photosensitive AD is scant, and this disease entity is rare. Alternative names include photoaggravated AD, photosensitive eczema, and light-exacerbated eczema.⁵ Two main studies have been conducted in recent years that were intended to characterize photosensitive AD. ten Berge et al⁵ conducted a retrospective study of 145 patients with AD that were phototested in 2009. They found that 3% of their total AD patient population had photosensitive AD.⁵ In 2016, Ellenbogen et al² performed a similar single-center retrospective analysis of 17 patients with long-standing AD who suddenly developed photosensitivity.

Patients with photosensitive AD typically present with lesions on sun-exposed skin with coexisting eczematous lesions in sites with a predilection for AD.² In the study conducted by ten Berge et al,⁵ 2 main reaction patterns were observed: erythematous papules with pruritus and an eczematous reaction. The authors suggested one subset of patients demonstrated polymorphous light eruption (PMLE), a common photoinduced eruption thought to represent a delayed-type hypersensitivity, coexisting with AD while the other subset had true photosensitive AD.^5,6 Ellenbogen et al² also found 2 reaction patterns, which they labeled papular (PMLE type) and eczematous (photosensitive AD type). The authors contested the theory of coexisting PMLE in AD because PMLE gets better in the summer with UV radiation hardening.² On the contrary, photosensitive AD worsens with uncontrolled exposure to sunlight. Only with controlled exposure to small doses of UV radiation at a time does this condition improve. Ellenbogen et al² believe both reaction patterns are consistent with photosensitive AD and the PMLE type should be termed papular photosensitive AD type.

Histopathology
The histopathologic findings of photosensitive AD are nonspecific but are characterized by spongiotic dermatitis with a perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate.²

Diagnosis With Phototesting
Phototesting of patients with AD should be considered if there is a suspicion for photosensitivity based on persistent disease despite use of photoprotection and local treatment.^5-7 Patients may not notice a correlation of skin exacerbations with UV exposure, especially if they are only sensitive to UVA, as it is still present on cloudy days and can penetrate glass windows.⁸ Phototesting evaluates the degree of sensitivity to UV light and the specific wavelength eliciting the cutaneous response. Phototesting consists of determining the MED to UVA and UVB, the minimal phototoxic dose for PUVA, and visible light exposure. Further evaluation may include photoprovocation testing or photopatch testing, as these patients can have coexisting photocontact allergies.

The MED is defined as the minimal dose of UV light needed to induce perceptible erythema in exposed skin.⁵ It is dependent on the light source and patient’s skin type, and individual units may vary. To determine the MED to UVA or UVB, 2×2-cm skin fields are irradiated with increasing cumulative UVA/UVB. The dose varies by skin type and it is then read at 24 hours. The majority of patients with photosensitive AD are reported to have a normal MED; however, some studies have reported the MED to be decreased.^5,7-9 ten Berge et al⁵ found 7% of their study participants exhibited a lower MED, as seen in our patient.

The minimal phototoxic dose for PUVA is defined as the least exposure dose of UVA 1 hour after ingestion of 0.4 mg/kg of methoxsalen that produces pink erythema with 4 distinct borders at 48, 72, or 96 hours after ingestion.¹⁰ Visible light exposure is tested using a slide projector as the light source to an approximately 10×5-cm area of skin for 45 minutes. Any immediate or delayed reaction is abnormal and considered positive.¹⁰

Photoprovocation testing has been performed in several studies.^2,5 It consists of exposing an 8-cm area of skin to 80 J/cm² UVA and 10 mJ/cm² UVB, which is read at 24, 48, or 72 hours. A papular or eczematous reaction is considered positive.^2,11

The results of phototesting have varied between studies. ten Berge et al⁵ phototested 107 patients with AD and photosensitivity and 17% were found to be solely sensitive to UVA whereas 67% were found to be sensitive to UVA and UVB. In contrast, Ellenbogen et al² only tested 17 patients with AD and photosensitivity and they found that 56% (9/16) were sensitive to UVA alone while only 44% (7/16) were sensitive to UVA and UVB.

Photopatch testing can help to rule out photosensitivity due to a substance in the presence of UV light. In studies of patients with photosensitive AD (N=125), photocontact reactions occurred in 23% and were predominantly associated with sunscreens, skin care products, and fragrances.^5,12 Photopatch testing is done by placing duplicate sets of patches on nonlesional skin using the Finn Chamber technique. A published list of allergens, which were agreed upon by the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Society for Photodermatology in 2000 are seen in Table 1.¹³ The list contains mainly UV filters and drugs. The patients’ own products also should be tested in addition to the published list of allergens, but a maximum of 30 patches should be placed at one time. The patches are removed at either 24 or 48 hours; some researchers have found greater sensitivity with the 48-hour time period, while others have not found a significant difference.¹⁰ One set of skin fields then is covered with an impermeable occlusive dressing as a control while the other is irradiated with 5 J/cm² of a broad-spectrum UVA light source. UVA fluorescent lamps are the light source of choice because of their widespread availability, reproducible broad spectrum, and beam uniformity.¹⁰ In the study conducted by ten Berge et al,⁵ photopatch testing was performed on 125 patients, and 29 patients were found to be positive to one or more substances. Ellenbogen et al² photopatch tested 5 patients with photosensitive AD and a clinical suspicion of photoallergy; however, all 5 were negative. Our patient underwent traditional patch testing due to clinical suspicion of a coexisting contact allergy, which was negative.

Conclusion

Photosensitive AD is a rare entity characterized by a photodistributed rash and involvement of non–sun-exposed skin. Patients will either have a history of AD or fulfill the criteria of AD. They have positive photoprovocation testing and generally have a normal MED. They may have positive photopatch testing with coexisting photoallergies. Histopathology is nonspecific but shows spongiotic dermatitis with perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Diagnosis is essential, as this disease can be life altering and affect quality of life. Effective treatment options are available, and the therapeutic ladder is based on severity of disease.^2,5

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common inflammatory skin condition, affecting approximately 15% to 20% of the global population.^1,2 Atopic dermatitis is characterized by a chronic relapsing dermatitis with pruritus, often beginning in infancy or childhood. Atopic dermatitis is caused by a defect in epidermal barrier function, which results in increased transepidermal water loss.¹ The criteria for AD include a pruritic skin condition plus 3 or more of the following: history of involvement of the skin creases, history of asthma or hay fever, history of AD in a first-degree relative (in children), 1-year history of generally dry skin, visible flexural eczema, and an age of onset of less than 2 years. Adults with AD frequently present with hand or facial dermatitis.¹

UV light therapies including narrowband UVB (NB-UVB), UVA1, and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) have all been used as effective treatments of AD.^3,4 UV light is beneficial for AD patients due to its immunomodulatory effects, thickening of the stratum corneum, and the reduction of Staphylococcus aureus in the skin.² Most patients with AD improve with light therapy; however, it is estimated that 1% to 3% of patients with AD will experience a paradoxical worsening of their AD after exposure to UV light.^2,5 This condition is referred to as photosensitive AD and is characterized by a photodistributed rash in patients who fulfill the criteria of AD. Photosensitive AD has a female predominance and generally affects patients with late-onset disease with development of AD after puberty.^2,5 The pathogenesis for the development of photosensitivity in patients with AD who previously tolerated exposure to sunlight is unknown.⁵ We describe a case of photosensitive AD exacerbated by UVB exposure.

Case Report

A 55-year-old Asian woman presented for evaluation of a rash on the head, neck, and arms. She reported that she had developed a pruritic rash with edema after sun exposure at 16 years of age. Since then, the rash has been intermittent and completely resolved at times with periods of decreased sun exposure; however, the rash recently had been persistent and worsening despite practicing strict sun protection with daily sunscreen application, protective clothing, and sun avoidance. She was not taking systemic medications or supplements at the time but was applying high-potency topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors with minimal improvement under the care of a dermatologist.

On physical examination the patient had thin, well-demarcated, erythematous papules and plaques with scaling, primarily on sun-exposed skin on the forehead (Figure 1A), cheeks (Figure 1B), eyelids, upper lip, neck (Figures 1B and 1C), upper chest (Figure 1C), and dorsal aspect of the hands, with excoriated pink papules on the forearms, shoulders, and back. A punch biopsy of the right neck showed spongiotic dermatitis with a perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (Figure 2). Further workup was pursued including complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic profile, liver function panel, Sjögren syndrome antigen A/Sjögren syndrome antigen B test, antinuclear antibody test, human immunodeficiency virus 1/2 antigen/antibody test, hepatitis panel, and mycobacterium tuberculosis test, which were all within reference range. Photodermatosis was suspected and she underwent phototesting including UVA, NB-UVB, and visible light. Phototesting confirmed she had a UVB photosensitivity with a markedly decreased minimal erythema dose (MED) to NB-UVB. The MED to NB-UVB was positive at 24 hours to all tested sites, the lowest of which was 0.135 J/cm². Eczematous changes began to develop at day 6 at doses of 0.945 and 1.080 J/cm². The patient also underwent visible light testing, which was negative. The patient was patch tested for multiple standardized agents as well as personal products, all of which were negative. Subsequent photopatch testing revealed a slightly positive reaction to benzophenone 4, a common ingredient in sunscreens.

The patient was then started on mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone. Repeat MED testing to NB-UVB was performed. Her repeat MED to NB-UVB was determined to be 0.405 J/cm², and hardening commenced at 3 times per week at 70% of the MED (0.2835 J/cm²). She began to flare and develop an eczematous reaction, thus the dose was decreased to 50% of the MED (0.2025 J/cm²), which she tolerated.

Comment

Classification and Clinical Presentation
The literature on photosensitive AD is scant, and this disease entity is rare. Alternative names include photoaggravated AD, photosensitive eczema, and light-exacerbated eczema.⁵ Two main studies have been conducted in recent years that were intended to characterize photosensitive AD. ten Berge et al⁵ conducted a retrospective study of 145 patients with AD that were phototested in 2009. They found that 3% of their total AD patient population had photosensitive AD.⁵ In 2016, Ellenbogen et al² performed a similar single-center retrospective analysis of 17 patients with long-standing AD who suddenly developed photosensitivity.

Patients with photosensitive AD typically present with lesions on sun-exposed skin with coexisting eczematous lesions in sites with a predilection for AD.² In the study conducted by ten Berge et al,⁵ 2 main reaction patterns were observed: erythematous papules with pruritus and an eczematous reaction. The authors suggested one subset of patients demonstrated polymorphous light eruption (PMLE), a common photoinduced eruption thought to represent a delayed-type hypersensitivity, coexisting with AD while the other subset had true photosensitive AD.^5,6 Ellenbogen et al² also found 2 reaction patterns, which they labeled papular (PMLE type) and eczematous (photosensitive AD type). The authors contested the theory of coexisting PMLE in AD because PMLE gets better in the summer with UV radiation hardening.² On the contrary, photosensitive AD worsens with uncontrolled exposure to sunlight. Only with controlled exposure to small doses of UV radiation at a time does this condition improve. Ellenbogen et al² believe both reaction patterns are consistent with photosensitive AD and the PMLE type should be termed papular photosensitive AD type.

Histopathology
The histopathologic findings of photosensitive AD are nonspecific but are characterized by spongiotic dermatitis with a perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate.²

Diagnosis With Phototesting
Phototesting of patients with AD should be considered if there is a suspicion for photosensitivity based on persistent disease despite use of photoprotection and local treatment.^5-7 Patients may not notice a correlation of skin exacerbations with UV exposure, especially if they are only sensitive to UVA, as it is still present on cloudy days and can penetrate glass windows.⁸ Phototesting evaluates the degree of sensitivity to UV light and the specific wavelength eliciting the cutaneous response. Phototesting consists of determining the MED to UVA and UVB, the minimal phototoxic dose for PUVA, and visible light exposure. Further evaluation may include photoprovocation testing or photopatch testing, as these patients can have coexisting photocontact allergies.

The MED is defined as the minimal dose of UV light needed to induce perceptible erythema in exposed skin.⁵ It is dependent on the light source and patient’s skin type, and individual units may vary. To determine the MED to UVA or UVB, 2×2-cm skin fields are irradiated with increasing cumulative UVA/UVB. The dose varies by skin type and it is then read at 24 hours. The majority of patients with photosensitive AD are reported to have a normal MED; however, some studies have reported the MED to be decreased.^5,7-9 ten Berge et al⁵ found 7% of their study participants exhibited a lower MED, as seen in our patient.

The minimal phototoxic dose for PUVA is defined as the least exposure dose of UVA 1 hour after ingestion of 0.4 mg/kg of methoxsalen that produces pink erythema with 4 distinct borders at 48, 72, or 96 hours after ingestion.¹⁰ Visible light exposure is tested using a slide projector as the light source to an approximately 10×5-cm area of skin for 45 minutes. Any immediate or delayed reaction is abnormal and considered positive.¹⁰

Photoprovocation testing has been performed in several studies.^2,5 It consists of exposing an 8-cm area of skin to 80 J/cm² UVA and 10 mJ/cm² UVB, which is read at 24, 48, or 72 hours. A papular or eczematous reaction is considered positive.^2,11

The results of phototesting have varied between studies. ten Berge et al⁵ phototested 107 patients with AD and photosensitivity and 17% were found to be solely sensitive to UVA whereas 67% were found to be sensitive to UVA and UVB. In contrast, Ellenbogen et al² only tested 17 patients with AD and photosensitivity and they found that 56% (9/16) were sensitive to UVA alone while only 44% (7/16) were sensitive to UVA and UVB.

Photopatch testing can help to rule out photosensitivity due to a substance in the presence of UV light. In studies of patients with photosensitive AD (N=125), photocontact reactions occurred in 23% and were predominantly associated with sunscreens, skin care products, and fragrances.^5,12 Photopatch testing is done by placing duplicate sets of patches on nonlesional skin using the Finn Chamber technique. A published list of allergens, which were agreed upon by the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Society for Photodermatology in 2000 are seen in Table 1.¹³ The list contains mainly UV filters and drugs. The patients’ own products also should be tested in addition to the published list of allergens, but a maximum of 30 patches should be placed at one time. The patches are removed at either 24 or 48 hours; some researchers have found greater sensitivity with the 48-hour time period, while others have not found a significant difference.¹⁰ One set of skin fields then is covered with an impermeable occlusive dressing as a control while the other is irradiated with 5 J/cm² of a broad-spectrum UVA light source. UVA fluorescent lamps are the light source of choice because of their widespread availability, reproducible broad spectrum, and beam uniformity.¹⁰ In the study conducted by ten Berge et al,⁵ photopatch testing was performed on 125 patients, and 29 patients were found to be positive to one or more substances. Ellenbogen et al² photopatch tested 5 patients with photosensitive AD and a clinical suspicion of photoallergy; however, all 5 were negative. Our patient underwent traditional patch testing due to clinical suspicion of a coexisting contact allergy, which was negative.

Conclusion

Photosensitive AD is a rare entity characterized by a photodistributed rash and involvement of non–sun-exposed skin. Patients will either have a history of AD or fulfill the criteria of AD. They have positive photoprovocation testing and generally have a normal MED. They may have positive photopatch testing with coexisting photoallergies. Histopathology is nonspecific but shows spongiotic dermatitis with perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Diagnosis is essential, as this disease can be life altering and affect quality of life. Effective treatment options are available, and the therapeutic ladder is based on severity of disease.^2,5

To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists offered their recommendations on athlete’s foot products. Consideration must be given to:

• Lamisil^AT Cream
  GlaxoSmithKline plc
  “I recommend Lamisil Cream twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks.”— Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
   
• Lamisil^AT Spray
  GlaxoSmithKline plc
  “This product is effective in treating fungus and allows for easy application with the ability of the spray to reach broad areas of the feet, including within the toe webs.”—Jeannette Graf, MD, New York, New York
   
• Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray
  Bayer
  “I recommend all my patients with tinea pedis to spray this product in their shoes.”—Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
   
• Zeasorb Athlete’s Foot
  Stiefel Laboratories, Inc
  “I recommend this powder to treat tinea pedis and to prevent recurrences in patients who have been treated for onychomycosis.”—Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, New York, New York
   

Cutis invites readers to send us their recommendations. Postprocedural makeup, moisturizers for men, and wet skin moisturizer will be featured in upcoming editions of Cosmetic Corner. Please e-mail your recommendation(s) to the Editorial Office.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. and shall not be used for product endorsement purposes. Any reference made to a specific commercial product does not indicate or imply that Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. endorses, recommends, or favors the product mentioned. No guarantee is given to the effects of recommended products.

To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists offered their recommendations on athlete’s foot products. Consideration must be given to:

• Lamisil^AT Cream
  GlaxoSmithKline plc
  “I recommend Lamisil Cream twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks.”— Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
   
• Lamisil^AT Spray
  GlaxoSmithKline plc
  “This product is effective in treating fungus and allows for easy application with the ability of the spray to reach broad areas of the feet, including within the toe webs.”—Jeannette Graf, MD, New York, New York
   
• Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray
  Bayer
  “I recommend all my patients with tinea pedis to spray this product in their shoes.”—Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
   
• Zeasorb Athlete’s Foot
  Stiefel Laboratories, Inc
  “I recommend this powder to treat tinea pedis and to prevent recurrences in patients who have been treated for onychomycosis.”—Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, New York, New York
   

Cutis invites readers to send us their recommendations. Postprocedural makeup, moisturizers for men, and wet skin moisturizer will be featured in upcoming editions of Cosmetic Corner. Please e-mail your recommendation(s) to the Editorial Office.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. and shall not be used for product endorsement purposes. Any reference made to a specific commercial product does not indicate or imply that Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. endorses, recommends, or favors the product mentioned. No guarantee is given to the effects of recommended products.

To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists offered their recommendations on athlete’s foot products. Consideration must be given to:

• Lamisil^AT Cream
  GlaxoSmithKline plc
  “I recommend Lamisil Cream twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks.”— Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
   
• Lamisil^AT Spray
  GlaxoSmithKline plc
  “This product is effective in treating fungus and allows for easy application with the ability of the spray to reach broad areas of the feet, including within the toe webs.”—Jeannette Graf, MD, New York, New York
   
• Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray
  Bayer
  “I recommend all my patients with tinea pedis to spray this product in their shoes.”—Gary Goldenberg, MD, New York, New York
   
• Zeasorb Athlete’s Foot
  Stiefel Laboratories, Inc
  “I recommend this powder to treat tinea pedis and to prevent recurrences in patients who have been treated for onychomycosis.”—Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, New York, New York
   

Cutis invites readers to send us their recommendations. Postprocedural makeup, moisturizers for men, and wet skin moisturizer will be featured in upcoming editions of Cosmetic Corner. Please e-mail your recommendation(s) to the Editorial Office.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. and shall not be used for product endorsement purposes. Any reference made to a specific commercial product does not indicate or imply that Cutis or Frontline Medical Communications Inc. endorses, recommends, or favors the product mentioned. No guarantee is given to the effects of recommended products.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with a painful pruritic rash on the hands and feet of 7 years’ duration. She reported intermittent joint pain but denied muscle weakness. Physical examination revealed fissured fingertips and heavy scaling of the palms and lateral fingers (Figure 1). Violaceous scaly papules were seen on the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints (Figure 2). A severe plantar keratoderma also was noted (Figure 3). Pink scaly plaques were present on the bilateral elbows and postauricular skin. Diffuse mat telangiectases covered the malar skin. Extensive poikilodermatous skin changes covered approximately 20% of the total body surface area. Salt-and-pepper patches and papules were noted over the bilateral thighs. She reported an uncertain history of recent radiographs of one or both hands, which showed no joint degeneration characteristic of psoriatic arthritis. She previously had been given a diagnosis of psoriasis by an outside dermatologist but was not responding to topical therapy.

Several skin biopsies showed histologic evidence of dermatomyositis (DM)(Figure 4). Prominent basement thickening also was seen on periodic acid–Schiff staining (not shown). Laboratory workup showed negative antinuclear antibodies and anti–Jo-1, anti-Ku, and anti-Mi2 antibodies. Muscle enzymes including creatinine kinase and aldolase were within reference range. Pelvic ultrasonography and mammography were negative. Pulmonary function tests were unremarkable. High-resolution chest computed tomography (CT) was ordered because of a history of chronic cough; however, no evidence of malignancy or interstitial lung disease was seen. The patient was diagnosed with amyopathic dermatomyositis (ADM). Rheumatology was consulted and initiated oral hydroxychloroquine therapy. After 3 months, the patient’s cutaneous disease did not respond and she reported having headaches associated with this medication; therefore, methotrexate was started. Within 2 months of treatment, full resolution of the plantar keratoderma (Figure 5) and clearance of the scaling/fissuring of the hands as well as the psoriatic-appearing plaques on the elbows was noted.

Comment

Amyopathic DM is a subset of DM that accounts for 10% to 20% of DM cases.^1,2 Sontheimer’s³ diagnostic criteria for ADM require histopathologic confirmation of the hallmark skin findings of classic DM and lack of muscle weakness or muscle enzyme (creatine kinase/aldolase) elevation for at least 2 years.

Similar to classic DM, ADM typically presents in the fifth decade of life and has a female predilection.^1,4 The term hypomyopathic DM is used to describe patients who exhibit classic skin findings and evidence of muscle involvement on magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, biopsy, or serum enzymes but have no clinical evidence of muscle weakness for at least 6 months. Together, hypomyopathic DM and ADM are referred to as clinically ADM (CADM). Patients who have met the criteria for hypomyopathic DM or ADM may later develop frank myopathy, progressing to a diagnosis of CADM, which may occur in as many as 10% to 13% of cases of CADM.^1,2 Clinical evidence of muscle weakness typically is heralded by elevation of creatine kinase and aldolase; therefore, patients with ADM should have muscle enzymes periodically checked.

Cutaneous findings of ADM are the same as the hallmark skin findings in CADM.³ Poikiloderma appears as thin telangiectatic skin in a background of mottled hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation. It represents chronic inflammation and often occurs in sun-exposed areas. Poikiloderma located on the posterior neck and shoulders is known as the shawl sign and on the lateral thighs as the holster sign.⁵ The term mechanic’s hands is used to describe the clinical finding of palmar erythema with scaling and fissuring of the fingertips.⁶ Scalp findings include erythematous, atrophic, scaly plaques resembling psoriasis and nonscarring alopecia.⁷ Gottron papules are nearly pathognomonic for DM. These violaceous papules often are pruritic and found over the finger joints, in contrast to the hand rash of lupus erythematosus that involves the skin between finger joints.⁸ Psoriatic-appearing plaques overlying the elbows and knees are known as Gottron sign and can contribute to misdiagnosis as psoriasis.⁸ The classic heliotrope rash presents as a violaceous hue in the periorbital area and may be associated with periorbital edema.⁹ Calcinosis cutis is common in CADM but rarely is reported in ADM.¹⁰ Nail findings include periungual hyperemia, cuticular overgrowth, and nail bed changes due to avascular areas and dilated capillaries. The cutaneous histopathologic findings in ADM are the same as with CADM: a smudged dermoepidermal interface, vacuolar alterations of the basal layer, and dermal mucin deposits.

Palmoplantar keratoderma rarely is reported as a cutaneous finding in DM. The finding of keratoderma has mainly been reported in association with Wong-type DM, a rare subtype of DM with features of pityriasis rubra pilaris.^11-13 Palmoplantar keratoderma also has been reported in a case of an ADM-like hydroxyurea-induced eruption¹⁴ and as an early presenting feature in one patient with CADM and one with juvenile DM.^15,16

The autoantibody profile in patients with ADM varies from that of CADM and can be helpful in both diagnosis and prognosis. Similar to CADM, the majority of patients with ADM have positive antinuclear antibodies.^2,17 Anti–Jo-1 (an anti–aminoacyl-transfer RNA synthetase) antibody frequently is found in CADM but rarely in ADM.² Anti–Jo-1 is predictive of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in CADM. Positive anti–Jo-1 in combination with Raynaud phenomenon and mechanic’s hands is referred to as antisynthetase syndrome in patients with CADM.^18,19 An antibody uniquely linked with CADM is the anti–CADM-140/MDA5 antibody and can be a marker of rapidly progressing ILD in these patients.²⁰ Anti–Mi-2 is another myositis-specific antibody not commonly found in ADM but is present in 15% to 30% of DM cases.^2,21 In CADM, the anti–Mi-2 antibody is associated with the shawl sign, ragged cuticles, and carpal tunnel syndrome and has a favorable prognosis.^17,21 Myositis-associated autoantibodies (eg, anti-Ku) are found in patients with symptoms overlapping both DM and scleroderma or other connective tissue diseases.²² More recently described, the anti-p155/140 antibody is highly specific (up to 89%) for occult malignancy in DM.²³

Lung disease is an important association in ADM. When it develops, it may be more aggressive compared to lung disease associated with CADM.^24-26 In a systematic review of 197 cases of ADM by Gerami et al,² 10% of patients had ILD, and it was fatal in 42% of cases. Most cases of ILD associated with CADM were diagnosed as interstitial pneumonitis or diffuse alveolar disease; bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia and basilar fibrosis also were recorded.² Anti–Jo-1 antibodies often accompany lung disease in CADM but are not typically found in lung disease associated with ADM. The anti–CADM-140/MDA5 antibody is associated with an increased risk for rapidly progressing ILD in patients with CADM.²⁰ Recommended baseline screening for lung disease in DM includes chest radiography, pulmonary function tests with diffusion capacity,⁸ and in some instances high-resolution chest CT.²⁷ Follow-up visits should include screening for symptoms of ILD such as cough, shortness of breath, or dyspnea. Treatment of myopathy-associated ILD is systemic steroids combined with various immunosuppressants including cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and intravenous immunoglobulin.^28,29

The risk of malignancy in ADM is thought to be similar to the rate of 20% to 25% found in CADM.^1,30-32 The most commonly reported malignancies associated with ADM are nasopharyngeal, breast, lung, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers and lymphoma/leukemia.^2,33 Patients with ADM should be screened for malignancy at diagnosis, then yearly for 3 years.^8,31,33 In addition to history, physical examination, and age/sex-appropriate screening, a complete blood cell count, chemistry panel, urinalysis, stool guaiac, CA 125, CA 19-9, chest radiograph, and abdominal ultrasound should be performed. For women, mammography and pelvic ultrasonography should be completed.³¹ Some experts also recommend a full-body CT scan. Because Asian patients have a higher risk for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, referral to an ear, nose, and throat surgeon for direct visualization also can be considered.³³ The risk of cancer in patients with DM compared to the general population is increased for at least the first 5 years after diagnosis, but most associated cancers are found within the first 3 years.³⁴

Several therapies have been found useful in ADM. Because lesions often are photoexacerbated, sun protection is essential. Antimalarials such as hydroxychloroquine are considered first-line therapy. Clinicians must be aware of 2 possible hydroxychloroquine side effects that can uniquely confuse the clinical picture in ADM. The first is a rash, most often morbilliform and pruritic, that occurs in DM more frequently than in other diseases.³⁵ The second is a myopathy found in as many as 6.7% of patients using antimalarials for rheumatic disease,³⁶ which can clinically mimic the progression of ADM to CADM.³⁷ Two small retrospective case series found that methotrexate was beneficial in ADM.^38,39 Methotrexate also has been reported as an efficacious treatment of ILD in patients with connective tissue diseases.^40,41 Intravenous immunoglobulin and other immunosuppressants are additional agents to be considered.⁴²

In summary, ADM is an important subset of DM and is more likely to present to dermatology practices than to other specialists. Amyopathic DM shares cutaneous findings with DM, and both overlap and differ with respect to other key disease characteristics including autoantibody profile, associated lung disease, and malignancy risk. Palmoplantar keratoderma is a rarely reported skin finding in DM. We report a case of ADM with the unique finding of severe plantar keratoderma. The fact that our patient’s keratoderma and other skin findings resolved concomitantly during methotrexate therapy leads us to believe that the keratoderma was a unique skin manifestation of the ADM itself.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with a painful pruritic rash on the hands and feet of 7 years’ duration. She reported intermittent joint pain but denied muscle weakness. Physical examination revealed fissured fingertips and heavy scaling of the palms and lateral fingers (Figure 1). Violaceous scaly papules were seen on the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints (Figure 2). A severe plantar keratoderma also was noted (Figure 3). Pink scaly plaques were present on the bilateral elbows and postauricular skin. Diffuse mat telangiectases covered the malar skin. Extensive poikilodermatous skin changes covered approximately 20% of the total body surface area. Salt-and-pepper patches and papules were noted over the bilateral thighs. She reported an uncertain history of recent radiographs of one or both hands, which showed no joint degeneration characteristic of psoriatic arthritis. She previously had been given a diagnosis of psoriasis by an outside dermatologist but was not responding to topical therapy.

Several skin biopsies showed histologic evidence of dermatomyositis (DM)(Figure 4). Prominent basement thickening also was seen on periodic acid–Schiff staining (not shown). Laboratory workup showed negative antinuclear antibodies and anti–Jo-1, anti-Ku, and anti-Mi2 antibodies. Muscle enzymes including creatinine kinase and aldolase were within reference range. Pelvic ultrasonography and mammography were negative. Pulmonary function tests were unremarkable. High-resolution chest computed tomography (CT) was ordered because of a history of chronic cough; however, no evidence of malignancy or interstitial lung disease was seen. The patient was diagnosed with amyopathic dermatomyositis (ADM). Rheumatology was consulted and initiated oral hydroxychloroquine therapy. After 3 months, the patient’s cutaneous disease did not respond and she reported having headaches associated with this medication; therefore, methotrexate was started. Within 2 months of treatment, full resolution of the plantar keratoderma (Figure 5) and clearance of the scaling/fissuring of the hands as well as the psoriatic-appearing plaques on the elbows was noted.

Comment

Amyopathic DM is a subset of DM that accounts for 10% to 20% of DM cases.^1,2 Sontheimer’s³ diagnostic criteria for ADM require histopathologic confirmation of the hallmark skin findings of classic DM and lack of muscle weakness or muscle enzyme (creatine kinase/aldolase) elevation for at least 2 years.

Similar to classic DM, ADM typically presents in the fifth decade of life and has a female predilection.^1,4 The term hypomyopathic DM is used to describe patients who exhibit classic skin findings and evidence of muscle involvement on magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, biopsy, or serum enzymes but have no clinical evidence of muscle weakness for at least 6 months. Together, hypomyopathic DM and ADM are referred to as clinically ADM (CADM). Patients who have met the criteria for hypomyopathic DM or ADM may later develop frank myopathy, progressing to a diagnosis of CADM, which may occur in as many as 10% to 13% of cases of CADM.^1,2 Clinical evidence of muscle weakness typically is heralded by elevation of creatine kinase and aldolase; therefore, patients with ADM should have muscle enzymes periodically checked.

Cutaneous findings of ADM are the same as the hallmark skin findings in CADM.³ Poikiloderma appears as thin telangiectatic skin in a background of mottled hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation. It represents chronic inflammation and often occurs in sun-exposed areas. Poikiloderma located on the posterior neck and shoulders is known as the shawl sign and on the lateral thighs as the holster sign.⁵ The term mechanic’s hands is used to describe the clinical finding of palmar erythema with scaling and fissuring of the fingertips.⁶ Scalp findings include erythematous, atrophic, scaly plaques resembling psoriasis and nonscarring alopecia.⁷ Gottron papules are nearly pathognomonic for DM. These violaceous papules often are pruritic and found over the finger joints, in contrast to the hand rash of lupus erythematosus that involves the skin between finger joints.⁸ Psoriatic-appearing plaques overlying the elbows and knees are known as Gottron sign and can contribute to misdiagnosis as psoriasis.⁸ The classic heliotrope rash presents as a violaceous hue in the periorbital area and may be associated with periorbital edema.⁹ Calcinosis cutis is common in CADM but rarely is reported in ADM.¹⁰ Nail findings include periungual hyperemia, cuticular overgrowth, and nail bed changes due to avascular areas and dilated capillaries. The cutaneous histopathologic findings in ADM are the same as with CADM: a smudged dermoepidermal interface, vacuolar alterations of the basal layer, and dermal mucin deposits.

Palmoplantar keratoderma rarely is reported as a cutaneous finding in DM. The finding of keratoderma has mainly been reported in association with Wong-type DM, a rare subtype of DM with features of pityriasis rubra pilaris.^11-13 Palmoplantar keratoderma also has been reported in a case of an ADM-like hydroxyurea-induced eruption¹⁴ and as an early presenting feature in one patient with CADM and one with juvenile DM.^15,16

The autoantibody profile in patients with ADM varies from that of CADM and can be helpful in both diagnosis and prognosis. Similar to CADM, the majority of patients with ADM have positive antinuclear antibodies.^2,17 Anti–Jo-1 (an anti–aminoacyl-transfer RNA synthetase) antibody frequently is found in CADM but rarely in ADM.² Anti–Jo-1 is predictive of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in CADM. Positive anti–Jo-1 in combination with Raynaud phenomenon and mechanic’s hands is referred to as antisynthetase syndrome in patients with CADM.^18,19 An antibody uniquely linked with CADM is the anti–CADM-140/MDA5 antibody and can be a marker of rapidly progressing ILD in these patients.²⁰ Anti–Mi-2 is another myositis-specific antibody not commonly found in ADM but is present in 15% to 30% of DM cases.^2,21 In CADM, the anti–Mi-2 antibody is associated with the shawl sign, ragged cuticles, and carpal tunnel syndrome and has a favorable prognosis.^17,21 Myositis-associated autoantibodies (eg, anti-Ku) are found in patients with symptoms overlapping both DM and scleroderma or other connective tissue diseases.²² More recently described, the anti-p155/140 antibody is highly specific (up to 89%) for occult malignancy in DM.²³

Lung disease is an important association in ADM. When it develops, it may be more aggressive compared to lung disease associated with CADM.^24-26 In a systematic review of 197 cases of ADM by Gerami et al,² 10% of patients had ILD, and it was fatal in 42% of cases. Most cases of ILD associated with CADM were diagnosed as interstitial pneumonitis or diffuse alveolar disease; bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia and basilar fibrosis also were recorded.² Anti–Jo-1 antibodies often accompany lung disease in CADM but are not typically found in lung disease associated with ADM. The anti–CADM-140/MDA5 antibody is associated with an increased risk for rapidly progressing ILD in patients with CADM.²⁰ Recommended baseline screening for lung disease in DM includes chest radiography, pulmonary function tests with diffusion capacity,⁸ and in some instances high-resolution chest CT.²⁷ Follow-up visits should include screening for symptoms of ILD such as cough, shortness of breath, or dyspnea. Treatment of myopathy-associated ILD is systemic steroids combined with various immunosuppressants including cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and intravenous immunoglobulin.^28,29

The risk of malignancy in ADM is thought to be similar to the rate of 20% to 25% found in CADM.^1,30-32 The most commonly reported malignancies associated with ADM are nasopharyngeal, breast, lung, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers and lymphoma/leukemia.^2,33 Patients with ADM should be screened for malignancy at diagnosis, then yearly for 3 years.^8,31,33 In addition to history, physical examination, and age/sex-appropriate screening, a complete blood cell count, chemistry panel, urinalysis, stool guaiac, CA 125, CA 19-9, chest radiograph, and abdominal ultrasound should be performed. For women, mammography and pelvic ultrasonography should be completed.³¹ Some experts also recommend a full-body CT scan. Because Asian patients have a higher risk for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, referral to an ear, nose, and throat surgeon for direct visualization also can be considered.³³ The risk of cancer in patients with DM compared to the general population is increased for at least the first 5 years after diagnosis, but most associated cancers are found within the first 3 years.³⁴

Several therapies have been found useful in ADM. Because lesions often are photoexacerbated, sun protection is essential. Antimalarials such as hydroxychloroquine are considered first-line therapy. Clinicians must be aware of 2 possible hydroxychloroquine side effects that can uniquely confuse the clinical picture in ADM. The first is a rash, most often morbilliform and pruritic, that occurs in DM more frequently than in other diseases.³⁵ The second is a myopathy found in as many as 6.7% of patients using antimalarials for rheumatic disease,³⁶ which can clinically mimic the progression of ADM to CADM.³⁷ Two small retrospective case series found that methotrexate was beneficial in ADM.^38,39 Methotrexate also has been reported as an efficacious treatment of ILD in patients with connective tissue diseases.^40,41 Intravenous immunoglobulin and other immunosuppressants are additional agents to be considered.⁴²

In summary, ADM is an important subset of DM and is more likely to present to dermatology practices than to other specialists. Amyopathic DM shares cutaneous findings with DM, and both overlap and differ with respect to other key disease characteristics including autoantibody profile, associated lung disease, and malignancy risk. Palmoplantar keratoderma is a rarely reported skin finding in DM. We report a case of ADM with the unique finding of severe plantar keratoderma. The fact that our patient’s keratoderma and other skin findings resolved concomitantly during methotrexate therapy leads us to believe that the keratoderma was a unique skin manifestation of the ADM itself.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with a painful pruritic rash on the hands and feet of 7 years’ duration. She reported intermittent joint pain but denied muscle weakness. Physical examination revealed fissured fingertips and heavy scaling of the palms and lateral fingers (Figure 1). Violaceous scaly papules were seen on the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints (Figure 2). A severe plantar keratoderma also was noted (Figure 3). Pink scaly plaques were present on the bilateral elbows and postauricular skin. Diffuse mat telangiectases covered the malar skin. Extensive poikilodermatous skin changes covered approximately 20% of the total body surface area. Salt-and-pepper patches and papules were noted over the bilateral thighs. She reported an uncertain history of recent radiographs of one or both hands, which showed no joint degeneration characteristic of psoriatic arthritis. She previously had been given a diagnosis of psoriasis by an outside dermatologist but was not responding to topical therapy.

Several skin biopsies showed histologic evidence of dermatomyositis (DM)(Figure 4). Prominent basement thickening also was seen on periodic acid–Schiff staining (not shown). Laboratory workup showed negative antinuclear antibodies and anti–Jo-1, anti-Ku, and anti-Mi2 antibodies. Muscle enzymes including creatinine kinase and aldolase were within reference range. Pelvic ultrasonography and mammography were negative. Pulmonary function tests were unremarkable. High-resolution chest computed tomography (CT) was ordered because of a history of chronic cough; however, no evidence of malignancy or interstitial lung disease was seen. The patient was diagnosed with amyopathic dermatomyositis (ADM). Rheumatology was consulted and initiated oral hydroxychloroquine therapy. After 3 months, the patient’s cutaneous disease did not respond and she reported having headaches associated with this medication; therefore, methotrexate was started. Within 2 months of treatment, full resolution of the plantar keratoderma (Figure 5) and clearance of the scaling/fissuring of the hands as well as the psoriatic-appearing plaques on the elbows was noted.

Comment

Amyopathic DM is a subset of DM that accounts for 10% to 20% of DM cases.^1,2 Sontheimer’s³ diagnostic criteria for ADM require histopathologic confirmation of the hallmark skin findings of classic DM and lack of muscle weakness or muscle enzyme (creatine kinase/aldolase) elevation for at least 2 years.

Similar to classic DM, ADM typically presents in the fifth decade of life and has a female predilection.^1,4 The term hypomyopathic DM is used to describe patients who exhibit classic skin findings and evidence of muscle involvement on magnetic resonance imaging, electromyography, biopsy, or serum enzymes but have no clinical evidence of muscle weakness for at least 6 months. Together, hypomyopathic DM and ADM are referred to as clinically ADM (CADM). Patients who have met the criteria for hypomyopathic DM or ADM may later develop frank myopathy, progressing to a diagnosis of CADM, which may occur in as many as 10% to 13% of cases of CADM.^1,2 Clinical evidence of muscle weakness typically is heralded by elevation of creatine kinase and aldolase; therefore, patients with ADM should have muscle enzymes periodically checked.

Cutaneous findings of ADM are the same as the hallmark skin findings in CADM.³ Poikiloderma appears as thin telangiectatic skin in a background of mottled hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation. It represents chronic inflammation and often occurs in sun-exposed areas. Poikiloderma located on the posterior neck and shoulders is known as the shawl sign and on the lateral thighs as the holster sign.⁵ The term mechanic’s hands is used to describe the clinical finding of palmar erythema with scaling and fissuring of the fingertips.⁶ Scalp findings include erythematous, atrophic, scaly plaques resembling psoriasis and nonscarring alopecia.⁷ Gottron papules are nearly pathognomonic for DM. These violaceous papules often are pruritic and found over the finger joints, in contrast to the hand rash of lupus erythematosus that involves the skin between finger joints.⁸ Psoriatic-appearing plaques overlying the elbows and knees are known as Gottron sign and can contribute to misdiagnosis as psoriasis.⁸ The classic heliotrope rash presents as a violaceous hue in the periorbital area and may be associated with periorbital edema.⁹ Calcinosis cutis is common in CADM but rarely is reported in ADM.¹⁰ Nail findings include periungual hyperemia, cuticular overgrowth, and nail bed changes due to avascular areas and dilated capillaries. The cutaneous histopathologic findings in ADM are the same as with CADM: a smudged dermoepidermal interface, vacuolar alterations of the basal layer, and dermal mucin deposits.

Palmoplantar keratoderma rarely is reported as a cutaneous finding in DM. The finding of keratoderma has mainly been reported in association with Wong-type DM, a rare subtype of DM with features of pityriasis rubra pilaris.^11-13 Palmoplantar keratoderma also has been reported in a case of an ADM-like hydroxyurea-induced eruption¹⁴ and as an early presenting feature in one patient with CADM and one with juvenile DM.^15,16

The autoantibody profile in patients with ADM varies from that of CADM and can be helpful in both diagnosis and prognosis. Similar to CADM, the majority of patients with ADM have positive antinuclear antibodies.^2,17 Anti–Jo-1 (an anti–aminoacyl-transfer RNA synthetase) antibody frequently is found in CADM but rarely in ADM.² Anti–Jo-1 is predictive of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in CADM. Positive anti–Jo-1 in combination with Raynaud phenomenon and mechanic’s hands is referred to as antisynthetase syndrome in patients with CADM.^18,19 An antibody uniquely linked with CADM is the anti–CADM-140/MDA5 antibody and can be a marker of rapidly progressing ILD in these patients.²⁰ Anti–Mi-2 is another myositis-specific antibody not commonly found in ADM but is present in 15% to 30% of DM cases.^2,21 In CADM, the anti–Mi-2 antibody is associated with the shawl sign, ragged cuticles, and carpal tunnel syndrome and has a favorable prognosis.^17,21 Myositis-associated autoantibodies (eg, anti-Ku) are found in patients with symptoms overlapping both DM and scleroderma or other connective tissue diseases.²² More recently described, the anti-p155/140 antibody is highly specific (up to 89%) for occult malignancy in DM.²³

Lung disease is an important association in ADM. When it develops, it may be more aggressive compared to lung disease associated with CADM.^24-26 In a systematic review of 197 cases of ADM by Gerami et al,² 10% of patients had ILD, and it was fatal in 42% of cases. Most cases of ILD associated with CADM were diagnosed as interstitial pneumonitis or diffuse alveolar disease; bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia and basilar fibrosis also were recorded.² Anti–Jo-1 antibodies often accompany lung disease in CADM but are not typically found in lung disease associated with ADM. The anti–CADM-140/MDA5 antibody is associated with an increased risk for rapidly progressing ILD in patients with CADM.²⁰ Recommended baseline screening for lung disease in DM includes chest radiography, pulmonary function tests with diffusion capacity,⁸ and in some instances high-resolution chest CT.²⁷ Follow-up visits should include screening for symptoms of ILD such as cough, shortness of breath, or dyspnea. Treatment of myopathy-associated ILD is systemic steroids combined with various immunosuppressants including cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and intravenous immunoglobulin.^28,29

The risk of malignancy in ADM is thought to be similar to the rate of 20% to 25% found in CADM.^1,30-32 The most commonly reported malignancies associated with ADM are nasopharyngeal, breast, lung, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers and lymphoma/leukemia.^2,33 Patients with ADM should be screened for malignancy at diagnosis, then yearly for 3 years.^8,31,33 In addition to history, physical examination, and age/sex-appropriate screening, a complete blood cell count, chemistry panel, urinalysis, stool guaiac, CA 125, CA 19-9, chest radiograph, and abdominal ultrasound should be performed. For women, mammography and pelvic ultrasonography should be completed.³¹ Some experts also recommend a full-body CT scan. Because Asian patients have a higher risk for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, referral to an ear, nose, and throat surgeon for direct visualization also can be considered.³³ The risk of cancer in patients with DM compared to the general population is increased for at least the first 5 years after diagnosis, but most associated cancers are found within the first 3 years.³⁴

Several therapies have been found useful in ADM. Because lesions often are photoexacerbated, sun protection is essential. Antimalarials such as hydroxychloroquine are considered first-line therapy. Clinicians must be aware of 2 possible hydroxychloroquine side effects that can uniquely confuse the clinical picture in ADM. The first is a rash, most often morbilliform and pruritic, that occurs in DM more frequently than in other diseases.³⁵ The second is a myopathy found in as many as 6.7% of patients using antimalarials for rheumatic disease,³⁶ which can clinically mimic the progression of ADM to CADM.³⁷ Two small retrospective case series found that methotrexate was beneficial in ADM.^38,39 Methotrexate also has been reported as an efficacious treatment of ILD in patients with connective tissue diseases.^40,41 Intravenous immunoglobulin and other immunosuppressants are additional agents to be considered.⁴²

In summary, ADM is an important subset of DM and is more likely to present to dermatology practices than to other specialists. Amyopathic DM shares cutaneous findings with DM, and both overlap and differ with respect to other key disease characteristics including autoantibody profile, associated lung disease, and malignancy risk. Palmoplantar keratoderma is a rarely reported skin finding in DM. We report a case of ADM with the unique finding of severe plantar keratoderma. The fact that our patient’s keratoderma and other skin findings resolved concomitantly during methotrexate therapy leads us to believe that the keratoderma was a unique skin manifestation of the ADM itself.

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia (TUGSE) is an uncommon, benign, self-limited condition that is restricted to the oral mucosa, most commonly seen in the fifth to seventh decades of life.^1-3 The pathogenesis of TUGSE is unknown, but current theory suggests trauma is the instigating factor. The presence of CD30⁺ mononuclear cells within TUGSE raises the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder in some cases.⁴ However, because CD30⁺ cells are not uncommon in other benign reactive processes, they may simply represent a reactive phenomenon.³

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia traverses multiple disciplines, including dermatology, oral surgery, dentistry, and pathology, resulting in a diverse nomenclature including traumatic granuloma of the tongue, traumatic eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa, ulcerated granuloma eosinophilicum diutinum, and eosinophilic ulcer of the oral mucosa.^1,4-6 It is important to differentiate eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa from the eosinophilic granuloma that is associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Although both may present with oral ulceration, Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma typically develops from underlying bone, whereas eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa (TUGSE) is described as nonosseous.^7,8 Furthermore, the gingiva is the most common oral site in Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma, whereas the tongue is most commonly involved in TUGSE.⁸ Shapiro and Juhlin⁹ clearly distinguished TUGSE from Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma in 1970. Histologically, the 2 conditions are completely different.

When ulcerative granulomas develop in the pediatric population, usually in children younger than 2 years, it is termed Riga-Fede disease.¹⁰ These children were typically breastfeeding, suckling, or teething, suggesting trauma as a triggering event. In 1961, Hjorting-Hansen and Schmidt⁵ described 3 separate lesions similar to Riga-Fede disease in an adult patient. Subsequently, Riga-Fede disease was grouped under TUGSE.³

Histologically, TUGSE shows an ulcerated epithelium with a polymorphic inflammatory cell infiltrate that has a large predominance of eosinophils. The infiltrate affects the superficial and deep layers of the muscle tissue and penetrates into the salivary glands. Large atypical mononuclear cells with an ovoid and pale-appearing nucleus often are present. These cells may be mitotically active and stain positively for CD30.^1,4,11 CD68⁺ macrophages, T lymphocytes, and factor XIIIa–positive dendritic cells commonly are present.¹²

Given the presence of large atypical CD30⁺ cells in many lesions, the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder has been postulated by some authors. Indeed, lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has been documented to involve the oral mucosa.^2,4

Case Report

An 81-year-old man presented with a rapidly enlarging, 1.7×1.3-cm, vascular-appearing nodule with a collarette of mucosal epithelium on the left side of the dorsal surface of the tongue of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). He denied any history of trauma, tobacco chewing, weight change, fever, or fatigue; however, he did report a 30 pack-year smoking history. There was no other pertinent medical history to include medications or allergies.

The differential diagnosis included pyogenic granuloma, granular cell tumor, squamous cell carcinoma, other neoplasms (eg, oral lymphoma, salivary gland tumors), and a traumatic blood blister from tongue biting. The patient was referred to the oral maxillofacial surgery department for an excisional biopsy, which showed a solitary ulcerated nodule with associated granulation tissue, thrombus, and fibrinoid debris (Figure 2). A surrounding dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and numerous eosinophils was noted extending through the submucosal tissue and underlying striated muscle fibers (Figure 3). The adjacent mucosal epithelium appeared normal. CD30 staining showed only rare positive cells. These findings were consistent with TUGSE.

Due to the benign nature of TUGSE, the patient was released with symptomatic care and instructed to return for any new growth. The growth spontaneously resolved over 1 month and no recurrence or new lesions were reported 1 year later.

Comment

Despite encompassing multiple disciplines of medicine, TUGSE has minimal exposure in the dermatologic literature. It is an important clinical and histologic diagnosis that will provide reassurance to the patient when accurately identified and reduce potentially harmful treatments.

Clinical Presentation
Typically, TUGSE presents as a painful solitary nodule with a central ulcer and yellow fibrinous base. The margins of the ulcer typically have an indurated and rolled appearance.^1,4 More than 50% of the lesions develop on the tongue, specifically the dorsal or lateral surfaces, but they may present anywhere in the oral mucosa.⁷ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia is a fast-growing lesion, typically developing in days to weeks. Although it spontaneously regresses, the lesion may take weeks or months to resolve. In one case, it resolved 1 year later.¹ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia has a bimodal age distribution, generally appearing in the first 2 years of life and later in the fifth through seventh decades. The male-to-female predominance is equal.^1,7,11 Reoccurrence is rare, but some reports have shown patients with multiple episodes of TUGSE.^13,14

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis for TUGSE includes squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, lymphoproliferative disorder, traumatic neuroma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, granulomatous disorders, and oral lymphoma. Inflammatory disorders such as syphilis, Behçet’s disease, herpes, histoplasmosis, Wegener granulomatosis, and others also should be considered.

Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis of TUGSE lesions recently has revealed the presence of CD30⁺ cells. These cells are associated with cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders including LyP, anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and borderline CD30⁺ lesions, among others. Systemic diseases with CD30⁺ cells include mycosis fungoides, other T-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphoma.^15,16 Once CD30⁺ cells were recognized, multiple authors began speculating there was a correlation between TUGSE and the CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders.^1,2,13 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma and LyP of the oral mucosa have been reported in several cases.^17-20 One report described 2 cases of ulcerated CD30⁺ T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the oral mucosa, one of which showed eosinophilic infiltrates and was initially thought to be TUGSE. Based on these overlapping clinical and histologic features, the authors hypothesized there was a correlation between oral ALCL, LyP, and TUGSE.¹⁷ In one report, a patient developed multiple TUGSE lesions throughout his life, suggesting a pathologic process similar to LyP. The lesion biopsied showed that 70% of the T cells expressed CD30 (Ki-1) antigen.¹³

Underlying Causes
In support of an underlying immunologic process that augments the growth of these lesions, 2 separate case reports of TUGSE in the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) and Epstein-Barr virus have been documented.^2,21 Concurrent presentation of TUGSE and HTLV-1 in one report demonstrated eosinophilia in both the oral lesion and peripheral blood, suggesting an immunologic relationship. Furthermore, the authors postulated that local trauma initiated the development of TUGSE, providing the catalyst for the HTLV-1 carrier to develop peripheral eosinophilia.²¹

In the second case, a 12-year-old boy developed TUGSE in the presence of Epstein-Barr virus.² Immunologically, this virus can be reactivated from its latent stage during immunosuppression. Epstein-Barr virus has been implicated in lymphoproliferative diseases of both B- and T-cell origin, including CD30⁺ ALCL and LyP.^22,23 The authors in this report again hypothesized there was a correlation between lymphoproliferative disorders and TUGSE lesions.^2,24

Alternatively, TUGSE may simply be a reactive process to trauma or another underlying trigger. It has been speculated that the presence of eosinophils correlates with antigen insertion into the oral mucosa, whereas other ulcers of the oral mucosa are devoid of eosinophils.¹ These antigens may include microorganisms, endogenous degradation products, or foreign proteins.^7,25 Additionally, the presence of CD30⁺ lymphocytes is not isolated to lymphoproliferative disorders. CD30⁺ cells have been documented in arthropod bite reactions, atopic dermatitis, drug reactions, molluscum contagiosum, and scabies, among others.^1,26

Healing and Management
The length of healing in TUGSE ulcers has substantial variability, from days to up to 1 year in an isolated case.^1,24 Sequential expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) α and TGF-β expressed by tissue eosinophils may be underlying factors associated with a quicker healing response as demonstrated by similar ulcers in hamsters.²⁷ Chronic nonhealing oral ulcers, particularly TUGSE lesions that demonstrated the typical increase in eosinophils in 11 of 12 cases, showed minimal TGF-α or TGF-β expression by eosinophils, perhaps indicating a possible mechanism leading to delayed wound healing in some cases. Interestingly, incisional biopsies often led to rapid wound healing, suggesting that the biopsy itself allowed for a transition back to the regular wound-healing processes.²⁸

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia spontaneously resolves on its own in most cases; however, because of the concern for malignancy, it has the potential to be overtreated.²⁶ Symptomatic treatment only is the mainstay of therapy. The patient should be instructed to avoid trauma, and referral to a dental professional is indicated when associated with dentures or other periprosthetic devices. Diet should consist of soft foods while avoiding spicy foods. Topical or oral analgesics may be necessary if substantial pain is associated with the lesion.² Oral prednisolone was used in a patient with concurrent HTLV-1 and TUGSE to treat peripheral eosinophilia.²¹ The patient’s peripheral eosinophils dropped to 1% in 1 day, and the patient’s oral lesion began to improve at day 3 and disappeared by day 10. Although TUGSE may spontaneously resolve within a 10-day period without steroids, it may be a reasonable treatment to improve healing time in an otherwise healthy individual.^21,26 If there is concern for malignancy, the patient should have the lesion biopsied to provide reassurance and for the added benefit of a transition to normal healing response and decreased healing time.²⁸

Clinical Recognition
The clinician should be aware of the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder, which has been associated with TUGSE in some cases, or may simulate TUGSE both clinically and histologically. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between these 2 entities. Whether it is a true relationship, simple coincidence, or simply overlapping clinical and histologic features remains to be determined.

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia (TUGSE) is an uncommon, benign, self-limited condition that is restricted to the oral mucosa, most commonly seen in the fifth to seventh decades of life.^1-3 The pathogenesis of TUGSE is unknown, but current theory suggests trauma is the instigating factor. The presence of CD30⁺ mononuclear cells within TUGSE raises the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder in some cases.⁴ However, because CD30⁺ cells are not uncommon in other benign reactive processes, they may simply represent a reactive phenomenon.³

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia traverses multiple disciplines, including dermatology, oral surgery, dentistry, and pathology, resulting in a diverse nomenclature including traumatic granuloma of the tongue, traumatic eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa, ulcerated granuloma eosinophilicum diutinum, and eosinophilic ulcer of the oral mucosa.^1,4-6 It is important to differentiate eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa from the eosinophilic granuloma that is associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Although both may present with oral ulceration, Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma typically develops from underlying bone, whereas eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa (TUGSE) is described as nonosseous.^7,8 Furthermore, the gingiva is the most common oral site in Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma, whereas the tongue is most commonly involved in TUGSE.⁸ Shapiro and Juhlin⁹ clearly distinguished TUGSE from Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma in 1970. Histologically, the 2 conditions are completely different.

When ulcerative granulomas develop in the pediatric population, usually in children younger than 2 years, it is termed Riga-Fede disease.¹⁰ These children were typically breastfeeding, suckling, or teething, suggesting trauma as a triggering event. In 1961, Hjorting-Hansen and Schmidt⁵ described 3 separate lesions similar to Riga-Fede disease in an adult patient. Subsequently, Riga-Fede disease was grouped under TUGSE.³

Histologically, TUGSE shows an ulcerated epithelium with a polymorphic inflammatory cell infiltrate that has a large predominance of eosinophils. The infiltrate affects the superficial and deep layers of the muscle tissue and penetrates into the salivary glands. Large atypical mononuclear cells with an ovoid and pale-appearing nucleus often are present. These cells may be mitotically active and stain positively for CD30.^1,4,11 CD68⁺ macrophages, T lymphocytes, and factor XIIIa–positive dendritic cells commonly are present.¹²

Given the presence of large atypical CD30⁺ cells in many lesions, the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder has been postulated by some authors. Indeed, lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has been documented to involve the oral mucosa.^2,4

Case Report

An 81-year-old man presented with a rapidly enlarging, 1.7×1.3-cm, vascular-appearing nodule with a collarette of mucosal epithelium on the left side of the dorsal surface of the tongue of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). He denied any history of trauma, tobacco chewing, weight change, fever, or fatigue; however, he did report a 30 pack-year smoking history. There was no other pertinent medical history to include medications or allergies.

The differential diagnosis included pyogenic granuloma, granular cell tumor, squamous cell carcinoma, other neoplasms (eg, oral lymphoma, salivary gland tumors), and a traumatic blood blister from tongue biting. The patient was referred to the oral maxillofacial surgery department for an excisional biopsy, which showed a solitary ulcerated nodule with associated granulation tissue, thrombus, and fibrinoid debris (Figure 2). A surrounding dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and numerous eosinophils was noted extending through the submucosal tissue and underlying striated muscle fibers (Figure 3). The adjacent mucosal epithelium appeared normal. CD30 staining showed only rare positive cells. These findings were consistent with TUGSE.

Due to the benign nature of TUGSE, the patient was released with symptomatic care and instructed to return for any new growth. The growth spontaneously resolved over 1 month and no recurrence or new lesions were reported 1 year later.

Comment

Despite encompassing multiple disciplines of medicine, TUGSE has minimal exposure in the dermatologic literature. It is an important clinical and histologic diagnosis that will provide reassurance to the patient when accurately identified and reduce potentially harmful treatments.

Clinical Presentation
Typically, TUGSE presents as a painful solitary nodule with a central ulcer and yellow fibrinous base. The margins of the ulcer typically have an indurated and rolled appearance.^1,4 More than 50% of the lesions develop on the tongue, specifically the dorsal or lateral surfaces, but they may present anywhere in the oral mucosa.⁷ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia is a fast-growing lesion, typically developing in days to weeks. Although it spontaneously regresses, the lesion may take weeks or months to resolve. In one case, it resolved 1 year later.¹ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia has a bimodal age distribution, generally appearing in the first 2 years of life and later in the fifth through seventh decades. The male-to-female predominance is equal.^1,7,11 Reoccurrence is rare, but some reports have shown patients with multiple episodes of TUGSE.^13,14

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis for TUGSE includes squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, lymphoproliferative disorder, traumatic neuroma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, granulomatous disorders, and oral lymphoma. Inflammatory disorders such as syphilis, Behçet’s disease, herpes, histoplasmosis, Wegener granulomatosis, and others also should be considered.

Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis of TUGSE lesions recently has revealed the presence of CD30⁺ cells. These cells are associated with cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders including LyP, anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and borderline CD30⁺ lesions, among others. Systemic diseases with CD30⁺ cells include mycosis fungoides, other T-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphoma.^15,16 Once CD30⁺ cells were recognized, multiple authors began speculating there was a correlation between TUGSE and the CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders.^1,2,13 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma and LyP of the oral mucosa have been reported in several cases.^17-20 One report described 2 cases of ulcerated CD30⁺ T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the oral mucosa, one of which showed eosinophilic infiltrates and was initially thought to be TUGSE. Based on these overlapping clinical and histologic features, the authors hypothesized there was a correlation between oral ALCL, LyP, and TUGSE.¹⁷ In one report, a patient developed multiple TUGSE lesions throughout his life, suggesting a pathologic process similar to LyP. The lesion biopsied showed that 70% of the T cells expressed CD30 (Ki-1) antigen.¹³

Underlying Causes
In support of an underlying immunologic process that augments the growth of these lesions, 2 separate case reports of TUGSE in the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) and Epstein-Barr virus have been documented.^2,21 Concurrent presentation of TUGSE and HTLV-1 in one report demonstrated eosinophilia in both the oral lesion and peripheral blood, suggesting an immunologic relationship. Furthermore, the authors postulated that local trauma initiated the development of TUGSE, providing the catalyst for the HTLV-1 carrier to develop peripheral eosinophilia.²¹

In the second case, a 12-year-old boy developed TUGSE in the presence of Epstein-Barr virus.² Immunologically, this virus can be reactivated from its latent stage during immunosuppression. Epstein-Barr virus has been implicated in lymphoproliferative diseases of both B- and T-cell origin, including CD30⁺ ALCL and LyP.^22,23 The authors in this report again hypothesized there was a correlation between lymphoproliferative disorders and TUGSE lesions.^2,24

Alternatively, TUGSE may simply be a reactive process to trauma or another underlying trigger. It has been speculated that the presence of eosinophils correlates with antigen insertion into the oral mucosa, whereas other ulcers of the oral mucosa are devoid of eosinophils.¹ These antigens may include microorganisms, endogenous degradation products, or foreign proteins.^7,25 Additionally, the presence of CD30⁺ lymphocytes is not isolated to lymphoproliferative disorders. CD30⁺ cells have been documented in arthropod bite reactions, atopic dermatitis, drug reactions, molluscum contagiosum, and scabies, among others.^1,26

Healing and Management
The length of healing in TUGSE ulcers has substantial variability, from days to up to 1 year in an isolated case.^1,24 Sequential expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) α and TGF-β expressed by tissue eosinophils may be underlying factors associated with a quicker healing response as demonstrated by similar ulcers in hamsters.²⁷ Chronic nonhealing oral ulcers, particularly TUGSE lesions that demonstrated the typical increase in eosinophils in 11 of 12 cases, showed minimal TGF-α or TGF-β expression by eosinophils, perhaps indicating a possible mechanism leading to delayed wound healing in some cases. Interestingly, incisional biopsies often led to rapid wound healing, suggesting that the biopsy itself allowed for a transition back to the regular wound-healing processes.²⁸

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia spontaneously resolves on its own in most cases; however, because of the concern for malignancy, it has the potential to be overtreated.²⁶ Symptomatic treatment only is the mainstay of therapy. The patient should be instructed to avoid trauma, and referral to a dental professional is indicated when associated with dentures or other periprosthetic devices. Diet should consist of soft foods while avoiding spicy foods. Topical or oral analgesics may be necessary if substantial pain is associated with the lesion.² Oral prednisolone was used in a patient with concurrent HTLV-1 and TUGSE to treat peripheral eosinophilia.²¹ The patient’s peripheral eosinophils dropped to 1% in 1 day, and the patient’s oral lesion began to improve at day 3 and disappeared by day 10. Although TUGSE may spontaneously resolve within a 10-day period without steroids, it may be a reasonable treatment to improve healing time in an otherwise healthy individual.^21,26 If there is concern for malignancy, the patient should have the lesion biopsied to provide reassurance and for the added benefit of a transition to normal healing response and decreased healing time.²⁸

Clinical Recognition
The clinician should be aware of the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder, which has been associated with TUGSE in some cases, or may simulate TUGSE both clinically and histologically. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between these 2 entities. Whether it is a true relationship, simple coincidence, or simply overlapping clinical and histologic features remains to be determined.

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia (TUGSE) is an uncommon, benign, self-limited condition that is restricted to the oral mucosa, most commonly seen in the fifth to seventh decades of life.^1-3 The pathogenesis of TUGSE is unknown, but current theory suggests trauma is the instigating factor. The presence of CD30⁺ mononuclear cells within TUGSE raises the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder in some cases.⁴ However, because CD30⁺ cells are not uncommon in other benign reactive processes, they may simply represent a reactive phenomenon.³

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia traverses multiple disciplines, including dermatology, oral surgery, dentistry, and pathology, resulting in a diverse nomenclature including traumatic granuloma of the tongue, traumatic eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa, ulcerated granuloma eosinophilicum diutinum, and eosinophilic ulcer of the oral mucosa.^1,4-6 It is important to differentiate eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa from the eosinophilic granuloma that is associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Although both may present with oral ulceration, Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma typically develops from underlying bone, whereas eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa (TUGSE) is described as nonosseous.^7,8 Furthermore, the gingiva is the most common oral site in Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma, whereas the tongue is most commonly involved in TUGSE.⁸ Shapiro and Juhlin⁹ clearly distinguished TUGSE from Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma in 1970. Histologically, the 2 conditions are completely different.

When ulcerative granulomas develop in the pediatric population, usually in children younger than 2 years, it is termed Riga-Fede disease.¹⁰ These children were typically breastfeeding, suckling, or teething, suggesting trauma as a triggering event. In 1961, Hjorting-Hansen and Schmidt⁵ described 3 separate lesions similar to Riga-Fede disease in an adult patient. Subsequently, Riga-Fede disease was grouped under TUGSE.³

Histologically, TUGSE shows an ulcerated epithelium with a polymorphic inflammatory cell infiltrate that has a large predominance of eosinophils. The infiltrate affects the superficial and deep layers of the muscle tissue and penetrates into the salivary glands. Large atypical mononuclear cells with an ovoid and pale-appearing nucleus often are present. These cells may be mitotically active and stain positively for CD30.^1,4,11 CD68⁺ macrophages, T lymphocytes, and factor XIIIa–positive dendritic cells commonly are present.¹²

Given the presence of large atypical CD30⁺ cells in many lesions, the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder has been postulated by some authors. Indeed, lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has been documented to involve the oral mucosa.^2,4

Case Report

An 81-year-old man presented with a rapidly enlarging, 1.7×1.3-cm, vascular-appearing nodule with a collarette of mucosal epithelium on the left side of the dorsal surface of the tongue of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). He denied any history of trauma, tobacco chewing, weight change, fever, or fatigue; however, he did report a 30 pack-year smoking history. There was no other pertinent medical history to include medications or allergies.

The differential diagnosis included pyogenic granuloma, granular cell tumor, squamous cell carcinoma, other neoplasms (eg, oral lymphoma, salivary gland tumors), and a traumatic blood blister from tongue biting. The patient was referred to the oral maxillofacial surgery department for an excisional biopsy, which showed a solitary ulcerated nodule with associated granulation tissue, thrombus, and fibrinoid debris (Figure 2). A surrounding dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and numerous eosinophils was noted extending through the submucosal tissue and underlying striated muscle fibers (Figure 3). The adjacent mucosal epithelium appeared normal. CD30 staining showed only rare positive cells. These findings were consistent with TUGSE.

Due to the benign nature of TUGSE, the patient was released with symptomatic care and instructed to return for any new growth. The growth spontaneously resolved over 1 month and no recurrence or new lesions were reported 1 year later.

Comment

Despite encompassing multiple disciplines of medicine, TUGSE has minimal exposure in the dermatologic literature. It is an important clinical and histologic diagnosis that will provide reassurance to the patient when accurately identified and reduce potentially harmful treatments.

Clinical Presentation
Typically, TUGSE presents as a painful solitary nodule with a central ulcer and yellow fibrinous base. The margins of the ulcer typically have an indurated and rolled appearance.^1,4 More than 50% of the lesions develop on the tongue, specifically the dorsal or lateral surfaces, but they may present anywhere in the oral mucosa.⁷ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia is a fast-growing lesion, typically developing in days to weeks. Although it spontaneously regresses, the lesion may take weeks or months to resolve. In one case, it resolved 1 year later.¹ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia has a bimodal age distribution, generally appearing in the first 2 years of life and later in the fifth through seventh decades. The male-to-female predominance is equal.^1,7,11 Reoccurrence is rare, but some reports have shown patients with multiple episodes of TUGSE.^13,14

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis for TUGSE includes squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, lymphoproliferative disorder, traumatic neuroma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, granulomatous disorders, and oral lymphoma. Inflammatory disorders such as syphilis, Behçet’s disease, herpes, histoplasmosis, Wegener granulomatosis, and others also should be considered.

Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis of TUGSE lesions recently has revealed the presence of CD30⁺ cells. These cells are associated with cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders including LyP, anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and borderline CD30⁺ lesions, among others. Systemic diseases with CD30⁺ cells include mycosis fungoides, other T-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphoma.^15,16 Once CD30⁺ cells were recognized, multiple authors began speculating there was a correlation between TUGSE and the CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders.^1,2,13 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma and LyP of the oral mucosa have been reported in several cases.^17-20 One report described 2 cases of ulcerated CD30⁺ T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the oral mucosa, one of which showed eosinophilic infiltrates and was initially thought to be TUGSE. Based on these overlapping clinical and histologic features, the authors hypothesized there was a correlation between oral ALCL, LyP, and TUGSE.¹⁷ In one report, a patient developed multiple TUGSE lesions throughout his life, suggesting a pathologic process similar to LyP. The lesion biopsied showed that 70% of the T cells expressed CD30 (Ki-1) antigen.¹³

Underlying Causes
In support of an underlying immunologic process that augments the growth of these lesions, 2 separate case reports of TUGSE in the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) and Epstein-Barr virus have been documented.^2,21 Concurrent presentation of TUGSE and HTLV-1 in one report demonstrated eosinophilia in both the oral lesion and peripheral blood, suggesting an immunologic relationship. Furthermore, the authors postulated that local trauma initiated the development of TUGSE, providing the catalyst for the HTLV-1 carrier to develop peripheral eosinophilia.²¹

In the second case, a 12-year-old boy developed TUGSE in the presence of Epstein-Barr virus.² Immunologically, this virus can be reactivated from its latent stage during immunosuppression. Epstein-Barr virus has been implicated in lymphoproliferative diseases of both B- and T-cell origin, including CD30⁺ ALCL and LyP.^22,23 The authors in this report again hypothesized there was a correlation between lymphoproliferative disorders and TUGSE lesions.^2,24

Alternatively, TUGSE may simply be a reactive process to trauma or another underlying trigger. It has been speculated that the presence of eosinophils correlates with antigen insertion into the oral mucosa, whereas other ulcers of the oral mucosa are devoid of eosinophils.¹ These antigens may include microorganisms, endogenous degradation products, or foreign proteins.^7,25 Additionally, the presence of CD30⁺ lymphocytes is not isolated to lymphoproliferative disorders. CD30⁺ cells have been documented in arthropod bite reactions, atopic dermatitis, drug reactions, molluscum contagiosum, and scabies, among others.^1,26

Healing and Management
The length of healing in TUGSE ulcers has substantial variability, from days to up to 1 year in an isolated case.^1,24 Sequential expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) α and TGF-β expressed by tissue eosinophils may be underlying factors associated with a quicker healing response as demonstrated by similar ulcers in hamsters.²⁷ Chronic nonhealing oral ulcers, particularly TUGSE lesions that demonstrated the typical increase in eosinophils in 11 of 12 cases, showed minimal TGF-α or TGF-β expression by eosinophils, perhaps indicating a possible mechanism leading to delayed wound healing in some cases. Interestingly, incisional biopsies often led to rapid wound healing, suggesting that the biopsy itself allowed for a transition back to the regular wound-healing processes.²⁸

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia spontaneously resolves on its own in most cases; however, because of the concern for malignancy, it has the potential to be overtreated.²⁶ Symptomatic treatment only is the mainstay of therapy. The patient should be instructed to avoid trauma, and referral to a dental professional is indicated when associated with dentures or other periprosthetic devices. Diet should consist of soft foods while avoiding spicy foods. Topical or oral analgesics may be necessary if substantial pain is associated with the lesion.² Oral prednisolone was used in a patient with concurrent HTLV-1 and TUGSE to treat peripheral eosinophilia.²¹ The patient’s peripheral eosinophils dropped to 1% in 1 day, and the patient’s oral lesion began to improve at day 3 and disappeared by day 10. Although TUGSE may spontaneously resolve within a 10-day period without steroids, it may be a reasonable treatment to improve healing time in an otherwise healthy individual.^21,26 If there is concern for malignancy, the patient should have the lesion biopsied to provide reassurance and for the added benefit of a transition to normal healing response and decreased healing time.²⁸

Clinical Recognition
The clinician should be aware of the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder, which has been associated with TUGSE in some cases, or may simulate TUGSE both clinically and histologically. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between these 2 entities. Whether it is a true relationship, simple coincidence, or simply overlapping clinical and histologic features remains to be determined.

Dermoscopy, or the noninvasive in vivo examination of the epidermis and superficial dermis using magnification, facilitates the diagnosis of pigmented and nonpigmented skin lesions.¹ Despite the benefit of dermoscopy in making early and accurate diagnoses of potentially life-limiting skin cancers, only 48% of dermatologists in the United States use dermoscopy in their practices.² The most commonly cited reason for not using dermoscopy is lack of training.

Although the use of dermoscopy is associated with younger age and more recent graduation from residency compared to nonusers, dermatology resident physicians continue to receive limited training in dermoscopy.² In a survey of 139 dermatology chief residents, 48% were not satisfied with the dermoscopy training that they had received during residency. Residents who received bedside instruction in dermoscopy reported greater satisfaction with their dermoscopy training compared to those who did not receive bedside instruction.³ This article provides a brief comparison of standard dermoscopy versus videodermoscopy for the instruction of trainees on common dermatologic diagnoses.

Bedside Dermoscopy

Standard optical dermatoscopes used for patient care and educational purposes typically incorporate 10-fold magnification and permit examination by a single viewer through a lens. With standard dermatoscopes, bedside dermoscopy instruction consists of the independent sequential viewing of skin lesions by instructors and trainees. Trainees must independently search for dermoscopic features noted by the instructor, which may be difficult for novice users. Simultaneous viewing of lesions would allow instructors to clearly indicate in real time pertinent dermoscopic features to their trainees.

Videodermatoscopes facilitate the simultaneous examination of cutaneous lesions by projecting the dermoscopic image onto a digital screen. Furthermore, these devices can incorporate magnifications of up to 200-fold or greater. In recent years, research pertaining to videodermoscopy has focused on the high magnification capabilities of these devices, specifically dermoscopic features that are visualized at magnifications greater than 10-fold, including the light brown nests of basal cell carcinomas that are seen at 50- to 70-fold magnification, twisted red capillary loops seen in active scalp psoriasis at 50-fold magnification, and longitudinal white indentations seen on nail plates affected by onychomycosis at 20-fold magnification.^4-6 The potential value of videodermoscopy in medical education lies not only in the high magnification potential, which may make subtle dermoscopic findings more apparent to novice dermoscopists, but also in the ability to facilitate simultaneous dermoscopic examinations by instructors and trainees.

Educational Applications for Videodermoscopy

To illustrate the educational potential of videodermoscopy, images taken with a standard dermatoscope at 10-fold magnification are presented with videodermoscopic images taken at magnifications ranging from 60- to 185-fold (Figures 1–3). These examples demonstrate the potential for videodermoscopy to facilitate the visualization of subtle dermoscopic features by novice dermoscopists, relating to both the enhanced magnification potential and the potential for simultaneous rather than sequential examination.

Final Thoughts

High-magnification videodermoscopy may be a useful tool to further dermoscopic education. Videodermatoscopes vary in functionality and cost but are available at price points comparable to those of standard optical dermatoscopes. Owners of standard dermatoscopes can approximate some of the benefits of a digital videodermatoscope by using the standard dermatoscope in conjunction with a camera, including those integrated into mobile phones and tablets. By attaching the standard dermatoscope to a camera with a digital display, the digital zoom of the camera can be used to magnify the standard dermoscopic image, enhancing the ability of novice dermoscopists to visualize subtle findings. By presenting this magnified image on a digital display, dermoscopy instructors and trainees would be able to simultaneously view dermoscopic images of lesions, sometimes with magnifications comparable to videodermatoscopes.

In the setting of a dermatology residency program, videodermoscopy can be incorporated into bedside teaching with experienced dermoscopists and for the live presentation of dermoscopic features at departmental grand rounds. By facilitating the simultaneous, high-magnification and live viewing of skin lesions by dermoscopy instructors and trainees, digital videodermoscopy has the potential to address an area of weakness in dermatologic training.

Dermoscopy, or the noninvasive in vivo examination of the epidermis and superficial dermis using magnification, facilitates the diagnosis of pigmented and nonpigmented skin lesions.¹ Despite the benefit of dermoscopy in making early and accurate diagnoses of potentially life-limiting skin cancers, only 48% of dermatologists in the United States use dermoscopy in their practices.² The most commonly cited reason for not using dermoscopy is lack of training.

Although the use of dermoscopy is associated with younger age and more recent graduation from residency compared to nonusers, dermatology resident physicians continue to receive limited training in dermoscopy.² In a survey of 139 dermatology chief residents, 48% were not satisfied with the dermoscopy training that they had received during residency. Residents who received bedside instruction in dermoscopy reported greater satisfaction with their dermoscopy training compared to those who did not receive bedside instruction.³ This article provides a brief comparison of standard dermoscopy versus videodermoscopy for the instruction of trainees on common dermatologic diagnoses.

Bedside Dermoscopy

Standard optical dermatoscopes used for patient care and educational purposes typically incorporate 10-fold magnification and permit examination by a single viewer through a lens. With standard dermatoscopes, bedside dermoscopy instruction consists of the independent sequential viewing of skin lesions by instructors and trainees. Trainees must independently search for dermoscopic features noted by the instructor, which may be difficult for novice users. Simultaneous viewing of lesions would allow instructors to clearly indicate in real time pertinent dermoscopic features to their trainees.

Videodermatoscopes facilitate the simultaneous examination of cutaneous lesions by projecting the dermoscopic image onto a digital screen. Furthermore, these devices can incorporate magnifications of up to 200-fold or greater. In recent years, research pertaining to videodermoscopy has focused on the high magnification capabilities of these devices, specifically dermoscopic features that are visualized at magnifications greater than 10-fold, including the light brown nests of basal cell carcinomas that are seen at 50- to 70-fold magnification, twisted red capillary loops seen in active scalp psoriasis at 50-fold magnification, and longitudinal white indentations seen on nail plates affected by onychomycosis at 20-fold magnification.^4-6 The potential value of videodermoscopy in medical education lies not only in the high magnification potential, which may make subtle dermoscopic findings more apparent to novice dermoscopists, but also in the ability to facilitate simultaneous dermoscopic examinations by instructors and trainees.

Educational Applications for Videodermoscopy

To illustrate the educational potential of videodermoscopy, images taken with a standard dermatoscope at 10-fold magnification are presented with videodermoscopic images taken at magnifications ranging from 60- to 185-fold (Figures 1–3). These examples demonstrate the potential for videodermoscopy to facilitate the visualization of subtle dermoscopic features by novice dermoscopists, relating to both the enhanced magnification potential and the potential for simultaneous rather than sequential examination.

Final Thoughts

High-magnification videodermoscopy may be a useful tool to further dermoscopic education. Videodermatoscopes vary in functionality and cost but are available at price points comparable to those of standard optical dermatoscopes. Owners of standard dermatoscopes can approximate some of the benefits of a digital videodermatoscope by using the standard dermatoscope in conjunction with a camera, including those integrated into mobile phones and tablets. By attaching the standard dermatoscope to a camera with a digital display, the digital zoom of the camera can be used to magnify the standard dermoscopic image, enhancing the ability of novice dermoscopists to visualize subtle findings. By presenting this magnified image on a digital display, dermoscopy instructors and trainees would be able to simultaneously view dermoscopic images of lesions, sometimes with magnifications comparable to videodermatoscopes.

In the setting of a dermatology residency program, videodermoscopy can be incorporated into bedside teaching with experienced dermoscopists and for the live presentation of dermoscopic features at departmental grand rounds. By facilitating the simultaneous, high-magnification and live viewing of skin lesions by dermoscopy instructors and trainees, digital videodermoscopy has the potential to address an area of weakness in dermatologic training.

Dermoscopy, or the noninvasive in vivo examination of the epidermis and superficial dermis using magnification, facilitates the diagnosis of pigmented and nonpigmented skin lesions.¹ Despite the benefit of dermoscopy in making early and accurate diagnoses of potentially life-limiting skin cancers, only 48% of dermatologists in the United States use dermoscopy in their practices.² The most commonly cited reason for not using dermoscopy is lack of training.

Although the use of dermoscopy is associated with younger age and more recent graduation from residency compared to nonusers, dermatology resident physicians continue to receive limited training in dermoscopy.² In a survey of 139 dermatology chief residents, 48% were not satisfied with the dermoscopy training that they had received during residency. Residents who received bedside instruction in dermoscopy reported greater satisfaction with their dermoscopy training compared to those who did not receive bedside instruction.³ This article provides a brief comparison of standard dermoscopy versus videodermoscopy for the instruction of trainees on common dermatologic diagnoses.

Bedside Dermoscopy

Standard optical dermatoscopes used for patient care and educational purposes typically incorporate 10-fold magnification and permit examination by a single viewer through a lens. With standard dermatoscopes, bedside dermoscopy instruction consists of the independent sequential viewing of skin lesions by instructors and trainees. Trainees must independently search for dermoscopic features noted by the instructor, which may be difficult for novice users. Simultaneous viewing of lesions would allow instructors to clearly indicate in real time pertinent dermoscopic features to their trainees.

Videodermatoscopes facilitate the simultaneous examination of cutaneous lesions by projecting the dermoscopic image onto a digital screen. Furthermore, these devices can incorporate magnifications of up to 200-fold or greater. In recent years, research pertaining to videodermoscopy has focused on the high magnification capabilities of these devices, specifically dermoscopic features that are visualized at magnifications greater than 10-fold, including the light brown nests of basal cell carcinomas that are seen at 50- to 70-fold magnification, twisted red capillary loops seen in active scalp psoriasis at 50-fold magnification, and longitudinal white indentations seen on nail plates affected by onychomycosis at 20-fold magnification.^4-6 The potential value of videodermoscopy in medical education lies not only in the high magnification potential, which may make subtle dermoscopic findings more apparent to novice dermoscopists, but also in the ability to facilitate simultaneous dermoscopic examinations by instructors and trainees.

Educational Applications for Videodermoscopy

To illustrate the educational potential of videodermoscopy, images taken with a standard dermatoscope at 10-fold magnification are presented with videodermoscopic images taken at magnifications ranging from 60- to 185-fold (Figures 1–3). These examples demonstrate the potential for videodermoscopy to facilitate the visualization of subtle dermoscopic features by novice dermoscopists, relating to both the enhanced magnification potential and the potential for simultaneous rather than sequential examination.

Final Thoughts

High-magnification videodermoscopy may be a useful tool to further dermoscopic education. Videodermatoscopes vary in functionality and cost but are available at price points comparable to those of standard optical dermatoscopes. Owners of standard dermatoscopes can approximate some of the benefits of a digital videodermatoscope by using the standard dermatoscope in conjunction with a camera, including those integrated into mobile phones and tablets. By attaching the standard dermatoscope to a camera with a digital display, the digital zoom of the camera can be used to magnify the standard dermoscopic image, enhancing the ability of novice dermoscopists to visualize subtle findings. By presenting this magnified image on a digital display, dermoscopy instructors and trainees would be able to simultaneously view dermoscopic images of lesions, sometimes with magnifications comparable to videodermatoscopes.

In the setting of a dermatology residency program, videodermoscopy can be incorporated into bedside teaching with experienced dermoscopists and for the live presentation of dermoscopic features at departmental grand rounds. By facilitating the simultaneous, high-magnification and live viewing of skin lesions by dermoscopy instructors and trainees, digital videodermoscopy has the potential to address an area of weakness in dermatologic training.

The Diagnosis: Incontinentia Pigmenti

The infant's mother was noted to have diffuse hypopigmented patches over the trunk, arms, and legs (present since adolescence) with whorled cicatricial alopecia of the vertex scalp and peg-shaped teeth (Figure). Together, these findings suggested incontinentia pigmenti (IP), which the mother revealed she had been diagnosed with in childhood. The infant's characteristic lesions in the setting of her mother's diagnosed genodermatosis confirmed the diagnosis of IP.

Incontinentia pigmenti is an X-linked dominant disorder that presents with many classic dermatologic, dental, neurologic, and ophthalmologic findings. The causative mutation occurs in IKBKG/NEMO (inhibitor of κ polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells, kinase γ/nuclear factor-κB essential modulator) gene on Xq28, disabling the resultant protein that normally protects cells from tumor necrosis factor family-induced apoptosis.¹ Incontinentia pigmenti usually is lethal in males and causes an unbalanced X-inactivation in surviving female IP patients. Occurring at a rate of 1.2 per 100,000 births,² IP typically presents in female infants with skin lesions patterned along Blaschko lines that evolve in 4 stages over a lifetime.³ Stage I, presenting in the neonatal period, manifests as vesiculobullous eruptions on the limbs and scalp. Stages II to IV vary in duration from months to years and are comprised of a verrucous stage, a hyperpigmented stage, and a hypopigmented stage, respectively.³ All stages of IP can overlap and coexist. 

The vesiculobullous findings in infants with IP may be mistakenly attributed to other diseases with prominent vesicular or bullous components including herpes simplex virus, epidermolysis bullosa, and infantile acropustulosis. With neonatal herpes simplex virus infection, vesicular skin or mucocutaneous lesions occur 9 to 11 days after birth and can be confirmed by specimen culture or qualitative polymerase chain reaction, while stage I of IP appears within the first 6 to 8 weeks of life and can be present at birth.⁴ The hallmark of epidermolysis bullosa, caused by mutations in keratins 5 and 14, is blistering erosions of the skin in response to frictional stress,¹ thus these lesions do not follow Blaschko lines. Infantile acropustulosis, a nonheritable vesiculopustular eruption of the hands and feet, rarely occurs in the immediate newborn period; it most often appears in the 3- to 6-month age range with recurrent eruptions at 3- to 4-week intervals.⁵ Focal dermal hypoplasia is another X-linked dominant disorder with blaschkolinear findings at birth that presents with pink or red, angular, atrophic macules, in contrast to the bullous lesions of IP.⁶

Incontinentia pigmenti may encompass a wide range of systemic symptoms in addition to the classic dermatologic findings. Notably, central nervous system defects are concurrent in up to 40% of IP cases, with seizures, mental retardation, and spastic paresis being the most common sequelae.⁷ Teeth defects, seen in 35% of patients, include delayed primary dentition and peg-shaped teeth. Many patients will experience ophthalmologic defects including vision problems (16%) and retinopathy (15%).⁷

The cutaneous eruptions of IP may be treated with topical corticosteroids or topical tacrolimus, and vesicles should be left intact and monitored for signs of infection.^8,9 Seizures, if present, should be treated with anticonvulsants, and regular neuropsychiatric monitoring and physical rehabilitation may be warranted. Patients should be regularly monitored for retinopathy beginning at the time of diagnosis. Retinal fibrovascular proliferation is treated with xenon laser photocoagulation to reduce the high risk for retinal detachment in this population.^10,11 Older and younger at-risk relatives must be evaluated by genetic testing or thorough physical examination to clarify their disease status and determine the need for additional genetic counseling.

The Diagnosis: Incontinentia Pigmenti

The infant's mother was noted to have diffuse hypopigmented patches over the trunk, arms, and legs (present since adolescence) with whorled cicatricial alopecia of the vertex scalp and peg-shaped teeth (Figure). Together, these findings suggested incontinentia pigmenti (IP), which the mother revealed she had been diagnosed with in childhood. The infant's characteristic lesions in the setting of her mother's diagnosed genodermatosis confirmed the diagnosis of IP.

Incontinentia pigmenti is an X-linked dominant disorder that presents with many classic dermatologic, dental, neurologic, and ophthalmologic findings. The causative mutation occurs in IKBKG/NEMO (inhibitor of κ polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells, kinase γ/nuclear factor-κB essential modulator) gene on Xq28, disabling the resultant protein that normally protects cells from tumor necrosis factor family-induced apoptosis.¹ Incontinentia pigmenti usually is lethal in males and causes an unbalanced X-inactivation in surviving female IP patients. Occurring at a rate of 1.2 per 100,000 births,² IP typically presents in female infants with skin lesions patterned along Blaschko lines that evolve in 4 stages over a lifetime.³ Stage I, presenting in the neonatal period, manifests as vesiculobullous eruptions on the limbs and scalp. Stages II to IV vary in duration from months to years and are comprised of a verrucous stage, a hyperpigmented stage, and a hypopigmented stage, respectively.³ All stages of IP can overlap and coexist. 

The vesiculobullous findings in infants with IP may be mistakenly attributed to other diseases with prominent vesicular or bullous components including herpes simplex virus, epidermolysis bullosa, and infantile acropustulosis. With neonatal herpes simplex virus infection, vesicular skin or mucocutaneous lesions occur 9 to 11 days after birth and can be confirmed by specimen culture or qualitative polymerase chain reaction, while stage I of IP appears within the first 6 to 8 weeks of life and can be present at birth.⁴ The hallmark of epidermolysis bullosa, caused by mutations in keratins 5 and 14, is blistering erosions of the skin in response to frictional stress,¹ thus these lesions do not follow Blaschko lines. Infantile acropustulosis, a nonheritable vesiculopustular eruption of the hands and feet, rarely occurs in the immediate newborn period; it most often appears in the 3- to 6-month age range with recurrent eruptions at 3- to 4-week intervals.⁵ Focal dermal hypoplasia is another X-linked dominant disorder with blaschkolinear findings at birth that presents with pink or red, angular, atrophic macules, in contrast to the bullous lesions of IP.⁶

Incontinentia pigmenti may encompass a wide range of systemic symptoms in addition to the classic dermatologic findings. Notably, central nervous system defects are concurrent in up to 40% of IP cases, with seizures, mental retardation, and spastic paresis being the most common sequelae.⁷ Teeth defects, seen in 35% of patients, include delayed primary dentition and peg-shaped teeth. Many patients will experience ophthalmologic defects including vision problems (16%) and retinopathy (15%).⁷

The cutaneous eruptions of IP may be treated with topical corticosteroids or topical tacrolimus, and vesicles should be left intact and monitored for signs of infection.^8,9 Seizures, if present, should be treated with anticonvulsants, and regular neuropsychiatric monitoring and physical rehabilitation may be warranted. Patients should be regularly monitored for retinopathy beginning at the time of diagnosis. Retinal fibrovascular proliferation is treated with xenon laser photocoagulation to reduce the high risk for retinal detachment in this population.^10,11 Older and younger at-risk relatives must be evaluated by genetic testing or thorough physical examination to clarify their disease status and determine the need for additional genetic counseling.

The Diagnosis: Incontinentia Pigmenti

The infant's mother was noted to have diffuse hypopigmented patches over the trunk, arms, and legs (present since adolescence) with whorled cicatricial alopecia of the vertex scalp and peg-shaped teeth (Figure). Together, these findings suggested incontinentia pigmenti (IP), which the mother revealed she had been diagnosed with in childhood. The infant's characteristic lesions in the setting of her mother's diagnosed genodermatosis confirmed the diagnosis of IP.

Incontinentia pigmenti is an X-linked dominant disorder that presents with many classic dermatologic, dental, neurologic, and ophthalmologic findings. The causative mutation occurs in IKBKG/NEMO (inhibitor of κ polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells, kinase γ/nuclear factor-κB essential modulator) gene on Xq28, disabling the resultant protein that normally protects cells from tumor necrosis factor family-induced apoptosis.¹ Incontinentia pigmenti usually is lethal in males and causes an unbalanced X-inactivation in surviving female IP patients. Occurring at a rate of 1.2 per 100,000 births,² IP typically presents in female infants with skin lesions patterned along Blaschko lines that evolve in 4 stages over a lifetime.³ Stage I, presenting in the neonatal period, manifests as vesiculobullous eruptions on the limbs and scalp. Stages II to IV vary in duration from months to years and are comprised of a verrucous stage, a hyperpigmented stage, and a hypopigmented stage, respectively.³ All stages of IP can overlap and coexist. 

The vesiculobullous findings in infants with IP may be mistakenly attributed to other diseases with prominent vesicular or bullous components including herpes simplex virus, epidermolysis bullosa, and infantile acropustulosis. With neonatal herpes simplex virus infection, vesicular skin or mucocutaneous lesions occur 9 to 11 days after birth and can be confirmed by specimen culture or qualitative polymerase chain reaction, while stage I of IP appears within the first 6 to 8 weeks of life and can be present at birth.⁴ The hallmark of epidermolysis bullosa, caused by mutations in keratins 5 and 14, is blistering erosions of the skin in response to frictional stress,¹ thus these lesions do not follow Blaschko lines. Infantile acropustulosis, a nonheritable vesiculopustular eruption of the hands and feet, rarely occurs in the immediate newborn period; it most often appears in the 3- to 6-month age range with recurrent eruptions at 3- to 4-week intervals.⁵ Focal dermal hypoplasia is another X-linked dominant disorder with blaschkolinear findings at birth that presents with pink or red, angular, atrophic macules, in contrast to the bullous lesions of IP.⁶

Incontinentia pigmenti may encompass a wide range of systemic symptoms in addition to the classic dermatologic findings. Notably, central nervous system defects are concurrent in up to 40% of IP cases, with seizures, mental retardation, and spastic paresis being the most common sequelae.⁷ Teeth defects, seen in 35% of patients, include delayed primary dentition and peg-shaped teeth. Many patients will experience ophthalmologic defects including vision problems (16%) and retinopathy (15%).⁷

The cutaneous eruptions of IP may be treated with topical corticosteroids or topical tacrolimus, and vesicles should be left intact and monitored for signs of infection.^8,9 Seizures, if present, should be treated with anticonvulsants, and regular neuropsychiatric monitoring and physical rehabilitation may be warranted. Patients should be regularly monitored for retinopathy beginning at the time of diagnosis. Retinal fibrovascular proliferation is treated with xenon laser photocoagulation to reduce the high risk for retinal detachment in this population.^10,11 Older and younger at-risk relatives must be evaluated by genetic testing or thorough physical examination to clarify their disease status and determine the need for additional genetic counseling.

This article exhibits key pediatric dermatology pearls garnered at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in Orlando, Florida (March 3–7, 2017). Highlights from both the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting (March 2, 2017) and the AAD general meeting sessions are included. This discussion is intended to help maximize care of our pediatric patients in dermatology and present high-yield take-home points from the AAD that can be readily transferred to our patient care.

“New Tools for Your Therapeutic Toolbox” by Erin Mathes, MD (University of California, San Francisco)

During this lecture at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, Dr. Mathes discussed a randomized controlled trial that took place in 2014 in both the United States and the United Kingdom to assess skin barrier enhancement to reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 124 high-risk infants.¹ The high-risk infants had either a parent or sibling with physician-diagnosed AD, asthma, or rhinitis, or a first-degree relative with an aforementioned condition. Full-body emollient therapy was applied at least once daily within 3 weeks of birth for 6 months, while the control arm did not use emollient. Parents were allowed to choose from the following emollients: sunflower seed oil, moisturizing cream, or ointment. The primary outcome was the incidence of AD at 6 months. The authors found a 43% incidence of AD in the control group compared to 22% in the emollient group, amounting to a relative risk reduction of approximately 50%.¹

Emollients in AD are hypothesized to help through the enhanced barrier function and decreased penetration of irritant substances and allergens. This study is vital given the ease of use of emollients and the foreseeable substantial impact on reduced health care costs associated with the decreased incidence of AD.

Take-Home Point
Full-body emollient therapy within 3 weeks of birth may reduce the incidence of AD in high-risk infants.

Dr. Mathes also discussed the novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor crisaborole and its emerging role in AD. She reviewed the results of a large phase 3 trial of crisaborole therapy for patients aged 2 years or older with mild to moderate AD.² Crisaborole ointment was applied twice daily for 28 days. The primary outcome measured was an investigator static global assessment score of clear or almost clear, which is a score for AD based on the degree of erythema, presence of oozing and crusting, and presence of induration or papulation. Overall, 32.8% of patients treated with crisaborole achieved success compared to 25.4% of vehicle-treated patients. The control patients were still given a vehicle to apply, which can function as therapy to help repair the barrier of AD and thus theoretically reduced the percentage gap between patients who met success with and without crisaborole therapy. Furthermore, only 4% of patients reported adverse effects such as burning and stinging with application of crisaborole in contrast to topical calcineurin inhibitors, which can elicit symptoms up to 50% of the time.² In summary, this lecture reviewed the first new topical treatment for AD in 15 years.

Take-Home Point
Crisaborole ointment is a novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years of age and older.

“The Truth About Pediatric Contact Dermatitis” by Sharon Jacob, MD (Loma Linda University, California)

In this session, Dr. Jacob discussed how she approaches pediatric patients with suspected contact dermatitis and elaborated on the common allergens unique to this patient population. Furthermore, she explained the substantial role of nickel in pediatric contact dermatitis, citing a study performed in Denmark and the United States, which tested 212 toys for nickel using the dimethylglyoxime test and found that 34.4% of toys did in fact release nickel.³ Additional studies have shown that nickel released from children’s toys is deposited on the skin, even with short contact times such as 30 minutes on one or more occasions within 2 weeks.^3,4 She is currently evaluating the presence of nickel in locales frequented by children such as schools, libraries, and supermarkets. Interestingly, she anecdotally found that a pediatric eczematous eruption in a spiralized distribution of the legs can be attributed to the presence of nickel in school chairs, and the morphology is secondary to children wrapping their legs around the chairs. In conclusion, she reiterated that nickel continues to be the top allergen among pediatric patients, and states that additional allergens for patch testing in this population are unique to their adult counterparts.

Take-Home Point
Nickel is an ubiquitous allergen for pediatric contact dermatitis; additionally, the list of allergens for patch testing should be tailored to this patient population.

“When to Image, When to Sedate” by Annette Wagner, MD (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois)

This lecture was a 3-part discussion on the safety of general anesthesia in children, when to image children, and when sedation may be worth the risk. Dr. Wagner shared her pearls for when children younger than 3 years may benefit from dermatologic procedures that involve general anesthesia. Large congenital lesions of the scalp or face that require tissue expansion or multiple stages may be best performed at a younger age due to the flexibility of the infant scalp, providing the best outcome. Additional considerations include a questionable malignant diagnosis in which a punch biopsy is not enough, rapidly growing facial lesions, Spitz nevi of the face, congenital lesions with no available therapy, and nonhealing refractory lesions causing severe pain. The general rule proposed was intervention for single procedures lasting less than 1 hour that otherwise would result in a worse outcome if postponed. Finally, she concluded to always advocate for your patient, to wait if the outcome will be the same regardless of timing, and to be frank about not knowing the risks of general anesthesia in this population. The resource, SmartTots (http://smarttots.org) provides current consensus statements and ongoing research on the use and safety of general anesthesia in children.

Take-Home Point
General sedation may be considered for short pediatric procedures that will result in a worse outcome if postponed.

“Highlights From the Pediatric Literature” by Katherine Marks, DO (Geisinger, Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania)

Dr. Marks discussed numerous emerging pediatric dermatology articles. One article looked at 40 infants with proliferating infantile hemangiomas (IHs) who had timolol gel 0.5% applied twice daily.⁵ The primary outcomes were the urinary excretion and serum levels of timolol as well as the clinical response to therapy measured by a visual analog scale at monthly visits. A urinalysis collected 3 to 4 hours after timolol application was found to be positive in 83% (20/24) of the tested patients; the first 3 positive infants were then sent to have their serum timolol levels drawn and also were found to be positive, though substantially small levels (median, 0.16 ng/mL). The 3 patients tested had small IHs on the face with no ulceration. None of these patients experienced adverse effects and all of the IHs significantly (P<.001) improved with therapy. The authors stated that even though the absorption was minimal, it is wise to be cognizant about the use of timolol in certain patient demographics such as preterm or young infants with large ulcerating IHs.⁵

Take-Home Point
Systemic absorption with topical timolol occurs, albeit substantially small; be judicious about giving this medication in select patient populations with ulcerated hemangiomas.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the presenters for their review and contributions to this article.

This article exhibits key pediatric dermatology pearls garnered at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in Orlando, Florida (March 3–7, 2017). Highlights from both the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting (March 2, 2017) and the AAD general meeting sessions are included. This discussion is intended to help maximize care of our pediatric patients in dermatology and present high-yield take-home points from the AAD that can be readily transferred to our patient care.

“New Tools for Your Therapeutic Toolbox” by Erin Mathes, MD (University of California, San Francisco)

During this lecture at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, Dr. Mathes discussed a randomized controlled trial that took place in 2014 in both the United States and the United Kingdom to assess skin barrier enhancement to reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 124 high-risk infants.¹ The high-risk infants had either a parent or sibling with physician-diagnosed AD, asthma, or rhinitis, or a first-degree relative with an aforementioned condition. Full-body emollient therapy was applied at least once daily within 3 weeks of birth for 6 months, while the control arm did not use emollient. Parents were allowed to choose from the following emollients: sunflower seed oil, moisturizing cream, or ointment. The primary outcome was the incidence of AD at 6 months. The authors found a 43% incidence of AD in the control group compared to 22% in the emollient group, amounting to a relative risk reduction of approximately 50%.¹

Emollients in AD are hypothesized to help through the enhanced barrier function and decreased penetration of irritant substances and allergens. This study is vital given the ease of use of emollients and the foreseeable substantial impact on reduced health care costs associated with the decreased incidence of AD.

Take-Home Point
Full-body emollient therapy within 3 weeks of birth may reduce the incidence of AD in high-risk infants.

Dr. Mathes also discussed the novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor crisaborole and its emerging role in AD. She reviewed the results of a large phase 3 trial of crisaborole therapy for patients aged 2 years or older with mild to moderate AD.² Crisaborole ointment was applied twice daily for 28 days. The primary outcome measured was an investigator static global assessment score of clear or almost clear, which is a score for AD based on the degree of erythema, presence of oozing and crusting, and presence of induration or papulation. Overall, 32.8% of patients treated with crisaborole achieved success compared to 25.4% of vehicle-treated patients. The control patients were still given a vehicle to apply, which can function as therapy to help repair the barrier of AD and thus theoretically reduced the percentage gap between patients who met success with and without crisaborole therapy. Furthermore, only 4% of patients reported adverse effects such as burning and stinging with application of crisaborole in contrast to topical calcineurin inhibitors, which can elicit symptoms up to 50% of the time.² In summary, this lecture reviewed the first new topical treatment for AD in 15 years.

Take-Home Point
Crisaborole ointment is a novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years of age and older.

“The Truth About Pediatric Contact Dermatitis” by Sharon Jacob, MD (Loma Linda University, California)

In this session, Dr. Jacob discussed how she approaches pediatric patients with suspected contact dermatitis and elaborated on the common allergens unique to this patient population. Furthermore, she explained the substantial role of nickel in pediatric contact dermatitis, citing a study performed in Denmark and the United States, which tested 212 toys for nickel using the dimethylglyoxime test and found that 34.4% of toys did in fact release nickel.³ Additional studies have shown that nickel released from children’s toys is deposited on the skin, even with short contact times such as 30 minutes on one or more occasions within 2 weeks.^3,4 She is currently evaluating the presence of nickel in locales frequented by children such as schools, libraries, and supermarkets. Interestingly, she anecdotally found that a pediatric eczematous eruption in a spiralized distribution of the legs can be attributed to the presence of nickel in school chairs, and the morphology is secondary to children wrapping their legs around the chairs. In conclusion, she reiterated that nickel continues to be the top allergen among pediatric patients, and states that additional allergens for patch testing in this population are unique to their adult counterparts.

Take-Home Point
Nickel is an ubiquitous allergen for pediatric contact dermatitis; additionally, the list of allergens for patch testing should be tailored to this patient population.

“When to Image, When to Sedate” by Annette Wagner, MD (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois)

This lecture was a 3-part discussion on the safety of general anesthesia in children, when to image children, and when sedation may be worth the risk. Dr. Wagner shared her pearls for when children younger than 3 years may benefit from dermatologic procedures that involve general anesthesia. Large congenital lesions of the scalp or face that require tissue expansion or multiple stages may be best performed at a younger age due to the flexibility of the infant scalp, providing the best outcome. Additional considerations include a questionable malignant diagnosis in which a punch biopsy is not enough, rapidly growing facial lesions, Spitz nevi of the face, congenital lesions with no available therapy, and nonhealing refractory lesions causing severe pain. The general rule proposed was intervention for single procedures lasting less than 1 hour that otherwise would result in a worse outcome if postponed. Finally, she concluded to always advocate for your patient, to wait if the outcome will be the same regardless of timing, and to be frank about not knowing the risks of general anesthesia in this population. The resource, SmartTots (http://smarttots.org) provides current consensus statements and ongoing research on the use and safety of general anesthesia in children.

Take-Home Point
General sedation may be considered for short pediatric procedures that will result in a worse outcome if postponed.

“Highlights From the Pediatric Literature” by Katherine Marks, DO (Geisinger, Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania)

Dr. Marks discussed numerous emerging pediatric dermatology articles. One article looked at 40 infants with proliferating infantile hemangiomas (IHs) who had timolol gel 0.5% applied twice daily.⁵ The primary outcomes were the urinary excretion and serum levels of timolol as well as the clinical response to therapy measured by a visual analog scale at monthly visits. A urinalysis collected 3 to 4 hours after timolol application was found to be positive in 83% (20/24) of the tested patients; the first 3 positive infants were then sent to have their serum timolol levels drawn and also were found to be positive, though substantially small levels (median, 0.16 ng/mL). The 3 patients tested had small IHs on the face with no ulceration. None of these patients experienced adverse effects and all of the IHs significantly (P<.001) improved with therapy. The authors stated that even though the absorption was minimal, it is wise to be cognizant about the use of timolol in certain patient demographics such as preterm or young infants with large ulcerating IHs.⁵

Take-Home Point
Systemic absorption with topical timolol occurs, albeit substantially small; be judicious about giving this medication in select patient populations with ulcerated hemangiomas.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the presenters for their review and contributions to this article.

This article exhibits key pediatric dermatology pearls garnered at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in Orlando, Florida (March 3–7, 2017). Highlights from both the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting (March 2, 2017) and the AAD general meeting sessions are included. This discussion is intended to help maximize care of our pediatric patients in dermatology and present high-yield take-home points from the AAD that can be readily transferred to our patient care.

“New Tools for Your Therapeutic Toolbox” by Erin Mathes, MD (University of California, San Francisco)

During this lecture at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, Dr. Mathes discussed a randomized controlled trial that took place in 2014 in both the United States and the United Kingdom to assess skin barrier enhancement to reduce the incidence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 124 high-risk infants.¹ The high-risk infants had either a parent or sibling with physician-diagnosed AD, asthma, or rhinitis, or a first-degree relative with an aforementioned condition. Full-body emollient therapy was applied at least once daily within 3 weeks of birth for 6 months, while the control arm did not use emollient. Parents were allowed to choose from the following emollients: sunflower seed oil, moisturizing cream, or ointment. The primary outcome was the incidence of AD at 6 months. The authors found a 43% incidence of AD in the control group compared to 22% in the emollient group, amounting to a relative risk reduction of approximately 50%.¹

Emollients in AD are hypothesized to help through the enhanced barrier function and decreased penetration of irritant substances and allergens. This study is vital given the ease of use of emollients and the foreseeable substantial impact on reduced health care costs associated with the decreased incidence of AD.

Take-Home Point
Full-body emollient therapy within 3 weeks of birth may reduce the incidence of AD in high-risk infants.

Dr. Mathes also discussed the novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor crisaborole and its emerging role in AD. She reviewed the results of a large phase 3 trial of crisaborole therapy for patients aged 2 years or older with mild to moderate AD.² Crisaborole ointment was applied twice daily for 28 days. The primary outcome measured was an investigator static global assessment score of clear or almost clear, which is a score for AD based on the degree of erythema, presence of oozing and crusting, and presence of induration or papulation. Overall, 32.8% of patients treated with crisaborole achieved success compared to 25.4% of vehicle-treated patients. The control patients were still given a vehicle to apply, which can function as therapy to help repair the barrier of AD and thus theoretically reduced the percentage gap between patients who met success with and without crisaborole therapy. Furthermore, only 4% of patients reported adverse effects such as burning and stinging with application of crisaborole in contrast to topical calcineurin inhibitors, which can elicit symptoms up to 50% of the time.² In summary, this lecture reviewed the first new topical treatment for AD in 15 years.

Take-Home Point
Crisaborole ointment is a novel topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years of age and older.

“The Truth About Pediatric Contact Dermatitis” by Sharon Jacob, MD (Loma Linda University, California)

In this session, Dr. Jacob discussed how she approaches pediatric patients with suspected contact dermatitis and elaborated on the common allergens unique to this patient population. Furthermore, she explained the substantial role of nickel in pediatric contact dermatitis, citing a study performed in Denmark and the United States, which tested 212 toys for nickel using the dimethylglyoxime test and found that 34.4% of toys did in fact release nickel.³ Additional studies have shown that nickel released from children’s toys is deposited on the skin, even with short contact times such as 30 minutes on one or more occasions within 2 weeks.^3,4 She is currently evaluating the presence of nickel in locales frequented by children such as schools, libraries, and supermarkets. Interestingly, she anecdotally found that a pediatric eczematous eruption in a spiralized distribution of the legs can be attributed to the presence of nickel in school chairs, and the morphology is secondary to children wrapping their legs around the chairs. In conclusion, she reiterated that nickel continues to be the top allergen among pediatric patients, and states that additional allergens for patch testing in this population are unique to their adult counterparts.

Take-Home Point
Nickel is an ubiquitous allergen for pediatric contact dermatitis; additionally, the list of allergens for patch testing should be tailored to this patient population.

“When to Image, When to Sedate” by Annette Wagner, MD (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois)

This lecture was a 3-part discussion on the safety of general anesthesia in children, when to image children, and when sedation may be worth the risk. Dr. Wagner shared her pearls for when children younger than 3 years may benefit from dermatologic procedures that involve general anesthesia. Large congenital lesions of the scalp or face that require tissue expansion or multiple stages may be best performed at a younger age due to the flexibility of the infant scalp, providing the best outcome. Additional considerations include a questionable malignant diagnosis in which a punch biopsy is not enough, rapidly growing facial lesions, Spitz nevi of the face, congenital lesions with no available therapy, and nonhealing refractory lesions causing severe pain. The general rule proposed was intervention for single procedures lasting less than 1 hour that otherwise would result in a worse outcome if postponed. Finally, she concluded to always advocate for your patient, to wait if the outcome will be the same regardless of timing, and to be frank about not knowing the risks of general anesthesia in this population. The resource, SmartTots (http://smarttots.org) provides current consensus statements and ongoing research on the use and safety of general anesthesia in children.

Take-Home Point
General sedation may be considered for short pediatric procedures that will result in a worse outcome if postponed.

“Highlights From the Pediatric Literature” by Katherine Marks, DO (Geisinger, Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania)

Dr. Marks discussed numerous emerging pediatric dermatology articles. One article looked at 40 infants with proliferating infantile hemangiomas (IHs) who had timolol gel 0.5% applied twice daily.⁵ The primary outcomes were the urinary excretion and serum levels of timolol as well as the clinical response to therapy measured by a visual analog scale at monthly visits. A urinalysis collected 3 to 4 hours after timolol application was found to be positive in 83% (20/24) of the tested patients; the first 3 positive infants were then sent to have their serum timolol levels drawn and also were found to be positive, though substantially small levels (median, 0.16 ng/mL). The 3 patients tested had small IHs on the face with no ulceration. None of these patients experienced adverse effects and all of the IHs significantly (P<.001) improved with therapy. The authors stated that even though the absorption was minimal, it is wise to be cognizant about the use of timolol in certain patient demographics such as preterm or young infants with large ulcerating IHs.⁵

Take-Home Point
Systemic absorption with topical timolol occurs, albeit substantially small; be judicious about giving this medication in select patient populations with ulcerated hemangiomas.

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the presenters for their review and contributions to this article.

Preventing complications from fillers and managing sharps injury are important areas for dermatologists who practice cosmetic procedures. Charlene C. Lam, MD, MPH, Penn State Hershey Dermatology, Pennsylvania, provided tips in the presentation, “Preventing Disasters in Your Practice,” at the Summer Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

There are a number of potential complications of fillers, and one of the most serious is blindness. Dr. Lam reported that autologous fat is most often associated with blindness; however, hyaluronic acid, collagen, poly-L-lactic acid, and calcium hydroxylapatite also have been associated. An understanding of facial anatomy is important. (Dr. Julie Woodward reviews the anatomy surrounding the eyes in a November 2016 Cutis article.) If your patient is experiencing vision changes, call ophthalmology immediately. “There is a 90-minute window to start treatment,” said Dr. Lam. “No treatment has been found consistently successful. Theoretically, the use of a retrobulbar injection of 300 to 600 U of hyaluronidase could potentially save the patient’s vision in the setting of hyaluronic acid filler use, though this strategy has not been attempted.

To prevent necrosis, Dr. Lam recommended obtaining a patient history of cosmetic procedures and prior surgical procedures that may alter underlying anatomy, using reversible fillers such as those formulated with hyaluronic acid, using cannulas and smaller-gauge needles, injecting small amounts under low pressure slowly, and keep moving so that you are not depositing a large amount of filler in one area. If you see blanching, Dr. Lam advised to stop; apply warm compresses for 10 minutes every 1 to 2 hours; use vigorous massage; and consider hyaluronidase and nitroglycerin paste 2%, aspirin, and/or prednisone.

In all instances, Dr. Lam recommends having a safety kit that is easily accessible with printed directions of how to handle complications. “I like to have all contact numbers of specialists available, hyaluronidase, aspirin, and nitroglycerin paste 2%,” said Dr. Lam. “These complications occur so rarely that when they do occur, you want to be prepared.”

Dr. Lam polled those in attendance at the session and learned that 91% had a sharps (ie, needlestick) injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates approximately 385,000 sharps injuries annually among hospital-based health care personnel. This number actually may be an underestimate, as many instances go unreported. Nearly half of the injuries associated with hollow-bore needles is related to disposal. “Injuries could be prevented with a safe way to protect the needle after its use,” Dr. Lam said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using devices with safety features engineered to prevent sharps injuries.

However, if a health care provider gets stuck, first wash the area with soap and water, and then have a plan in place for medical care. He/she and the patient should be tested for hepatitis B and C viruses as well as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The risk for hepatitis B infection is greatest (6%–30%); the risk for hepatitis C virus is approximately 2% and the risk for HIV is 0.3%. “It is so important to create a positive culture of reporting that makes it acceptable for all members of the team to report a sharps injury,” said Dr. Lam. “Postexposure prophylaxis is available for HIV and it is critical to start as soon as possible.”

Preventing complications from fillers and managing sharps injury are important areas for dermatologists who practice cosmetic procedures. Charlene C. Lam, MD, MPH, Penn State Hershey Dermatology, Pennsylvania, provided tips in the presentation, “Preventing Disasters in Your Practice,” at the Summer Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

There are a number of potential complications of fillers, and one of the most serious is blindness. Dr. Lam reported that autologous fat is most often associated with blindness; however, hyaluronic acid, collagen, poly-L-lactic acid, and calcium hydroxylapatite also have been associated. An understanding of facial anatomy is important. (Dr. Julie Woodward reviews the anatomy surrounding the eyes in a November 2016 Cutis article.) If your patient is experiencing vision changes, call ophthalmology immediately. “There is a 90-minute window to start treatment,” said Dr. Lam. “No treatment has been found consistently successful. Theoretically, the use of a retrobulbar injection of 300 to 600 U of hyaluronidase could potentially save the patient’s vision in the setting of hyaluronic acid filler use, though this strategy has not been attempted.

To prevent necrosis, Dr. Lam recommended obtaining a patient history of cosmetic procedures and prior surgical procedures that may alter underlying anatomy, using reversible fillers such as those formulated with hyaluronic acid, using cannulas and smaller-gauge needles, injecting small amounts under low pressure slowly, and keep moving so that you are not depositing a large amount of filler in one area. If you see blanching, Dr. Lam advised to stop; apply warm compresses for 10 minutes every 1 to 2 hours; use vigorous massage; and consider hyaluronidase and nitroglycerin paste 2%, aspirin, and/or prednisone.

In all instances, Dr. Lam recommends having a safety kit that is easily accessible with printed directions of how to handle complications. “I like to have all contact numbers of specialists available, hyaluronidase, aspirin, and nitroglycerin paste 2%,” said Dr. Lam. “These complications occur so rarely that when they do occur, you want to be prepared.”

Dr. Lam polled those in attendance at the session and learned that 91% had a sharps (ie, needlestick) injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates approximately 385,000 sharps injuries annually among hospital-based health care personnel. This number actually may be an underestimate, as many instances go unreported. Nearly half of the injuries associated with hollow-bore needles is related to disposal. “Injuries could be prevented with a safe way to protect the needle after its use,” Dr. Lam said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using devices with safety features engineered to prevent sharps injuries.

However, if a health care provider gets stuck, first wash the area with soap and water, and then have a plan in place for medical care. He/she and the patient should be tested for hepatitis B and C viruses as well as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The risk for hepatitis B infection is greatest (6%–30%); the risk for hepatitis C virus is approximately 2% and the risk for HIV is 0.3%. “It is so important to create a positive culture of reporting that makes it acceptable for all members of the team to report a sharps injury,” said Dr. Lam. “Postexposure prophylaxis is available for HIV and it is critical to start as soon as possible.”

Preventing complications from fillers and managing sharps injury are important areas for dermatologists who practice cosmetic procedures. Charlene C. Lam, MD, MPH, Penn State Hershey Dermatology, Pennsylvania, provided tips in the presentation, “Preventing Disasters in Your Practice,” at the Summer Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

There are a number of potential complications of fillers, and one of the most serious is blindness. Dr. Lam reported that autologous fat is most often associated with blindness; however, hyaluronic acid, collagen, poly-L-lactic acid, and calcium hydroxylapatite also have been associated. An understanding of facial anatomy is important. (Dr. Julie Woodward reviews the anatomy surrounding the eyes in a November 2016 Cutis article.) If your patient is experiencing vision changes, call ophthalmology immediately. “There is a 90-minute window to start treatment,” said Dr. Lam. “No treatment has been found consistently successful. Theoretically, the use of a retrobulbar injection of 300 to 600 U of hyaluronidase could potentially save the patient’s vision in the setting of hyaluronic acid filler use, though this strategy has not been attempted.

To prevent necrosis, Dr. Lam recommended obtaining a patient history of cosmetic procedures and prior surgical procedures that may alter underlying anatomy, using reversible fillers such as those formulated with hyaluronic acid, using cannulas and smaller-gauge needles, injecting small amounts under low pressure slowly, and keep moving so that you are not depositing a large amount of filler in one area. If you see blanching, Dr. Lam advised to stop; apply warm compresses for 10 minutes every 1 to 2 hours; use vigorous massage; and consider hyaluronidase and nitroglycerin paste 2%, aspirin, and/or prednisone.

In all instances, Dr. Lam recommends having a safety kit that is easily accessible with printed directions of how to handle complications. “I like to have all contact numbers of specialists available, hyaluronidase, aspirin, and nitroglycerin paste 2%,” said Dr. Lam. “These complications occur so rarely that when they do occur, you want to be prepared.”

Dr. Lam polled those in attendance at the session and learned that 91% had a sharps (ie, needlestick) injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates approximately 385,000 sharps injuries annually among hospital-based health care personnel. This number actually may be an underestimate, as many instances go unreported. Nearly half of the injuries associated with hollow-bore needles is related to disposal. “Injuries could be prevented with a safe way to protect the needle after its use,” Dr. Lam said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using devices with safety features engineered to prevent sharps injuries.

However, if a health care provider gets stuck, first wash the area with soap and water, and then have a plan in place for medical care. He/she and the patient should be tested for hepatitis B and C viruses as well as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The risk for hepatitis B infection is greatest (6%–30%); the risk for hepatitis C virus is approximately 2% and the risk for HIV is 0.3%. “It is so important to create a positive culture of reporting that makes it acceptable for all members of the team to report a sharps injury,” said Dr. Lam. “Postexposure prophylaxis is available for HIV and it is critical to start as soon as possible.”