Contact dermatitis
-
Tattoos are not mentioned as a source of exposure to nickel. Traces of nickel are, however, almost inevitably found in tattoo inks as impurities and sometimes in tattooed skin. Whether nickel in tattoos has any health consequence is debated. ⋯ We found no report of any systemic complication attributed to nickel from tattoos. The Council of Europe ResAP(2008)1 bans the presence of nickel at high levels in tattoo inks, which is a safety net for individuals with nickel allergy. Large epidemiologic case-control studies with systematic biopsies on normal and inflamed tattoos and patch testing would help to understand the role of nickel in tattoo ink allergies.
-
Personal protective equipment (PPE) is defined as equipment that protects the wearer's body against health/safety risks at work. Gloves cause many dermatoses. Non-glove PPE constitutes a wide array of garments. Dermatoses resulting from these have hitherto not been documented. ⋯ Clothing, footwear, facemasks and headgear need to be recognized as causes of dermatoses occurring at body sites less commonly associated with occupational skin disease.
-
Although the fields of bibliometrics and citation analysis have existed for many years, relatively few studies have specifically focused on the dermatological literature. This article reviews citation-based research in the dermatology journals, with a particular interest in manuscripts that have included Contact Dermatitis as part of their analysis. Overall, it can be seen that the rise of bibliometrics during the mid-20th century and its subsequent application to dermatology has provided an interesting insight into the progression of research within our discipline. Further investigation of citation trends and top-cited papers in skin research periodicals would certainly help complement the current body of knowledge.
-
We report the first case of immediate-type hypersensitivity caused by Emla cream. A 55-year-old woman, after using Emla cream, went on to develop urticaria. An open test was positive to Emla cream. ⋯ An intradermal test and subcutaneous administration of 3 anaesthetics that had negative patch tests and prick tests were performed and well tolerated, allowing their use. In the literature, anaphylactic reactions to lidocaine injections, delayed-type hypersensitivity after lidocaine subcutaneous injections and contact dermatitis from Emla cream have all been described. This first case of contact urticaria from Emla cream was due to lidocaine and did not show any cross-reaction with other local anaesthetics.
-
Review Case Reports
Chlorhexidine anaphylaxis: case report and review of the literature.
Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic and disinfectant. Compared to its ubiquitous use in medical and non-medical environments, the sensitization rate seems to be low. Multivarious hypersensitivity reactions to the agent have been reported, including delayed hypersensitivity reactions such as contact dermatitis, fixed drug eruptions and photosensitivity reactions. ⋯ Besides our patient, only one other case of severe anaphylactic reaction due to application of chlorhexidine on skin has been reported. Hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine is rare, but its potential to cause anaphylactic shock is probably underestimated. This review should remind all clinicians of an important potential risk of this widely used antiseptic.