International journal of dermatology · 2012
Disseminated dermatophytic pseudomycetoma caused by Microsporum species.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tirado-González Mariantonieta, Ball Elizabeth, Ruiz Angela, Rodriguez Ysabel, Goudet Carmen Elena, Finkel Oksana, Golan Haim, de Morentin Helena Martinez, Sprecher Hanna, Sprecher Eli, Gat Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dermatophyte infection is almost exclusively a superficial cutaneous mycosis usually confined to the stratum corneum of nails and hairs of normal hosts. Deep cutaneous and subcutaneous infections due to dermatophytes are exceedingly rare and usually limited to immunosuppressed individuals. These infections remain chronic and persist in spite of treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report two clinical cases of disseminated dermatophytic pseudomycetoma caused by Microsporum gypseum and Microsporum canis in immunosuppressed patients.
RESULTS: Patient 1, in 2008, showed improvement with fluconazole, cephalothin, and terbinafine treatment for Microsporum gypseum. After suspension of the treatment, new lesions appeared and culture from material was positive. In 2009, she presented confluent papules and nodules forming plaques on her face and neck with the isolation of Microsporum canis. Clinical response to this treatment was poor. Patient 2 was affected by both tinea corporis due to Trichophyton rubrum and dermatophytic pseudomycetoma caused by Microsporum canis. The response to treatment was successful with oral itraconazole and local surgical excision.
CONCLUSIONS: It is important to recognize these atypical presentations of dermatophytic infections in immunosuppressed patients, which may warrant a more aggressive treatment in order to achieve resolution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report two clinical cases of disseminated dermatophytic pseudomycetoma caused by Microsporum gypseum and Microsporum canis in immunosuppressed patients.
RESULTS: Patient 1, in 2008, showed improvement with fluconazole, cephalothin, and terbinafine treatment for Microsporum gypseum. After suspension of the treatment, new lesions appeared and culture from material was positive. In 2009, she presented confluent papules and nodules forming plaques on her face and neck with the isolation of Microsporum canis. Clinical response to this treatment was poor. Patient 2 was affected by both tinea corporis due to Trichophyton rubrum and dermatophytic pseudomycetoma caused by Microsporum canis. The response to treatment was successful with oral itraconazole and local surgical excision.
CONCLUSIONS: It is important to recognize these atypical presentations of dermatophytic infections in immunosuppressed patients, which may warrant a more aggressive treatment in order to achieve resolution.