MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/dss.0000000000000594

Медицинская библиотека · Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2016

Longitudinal Erythronychia: Retrospective Single-Center Study Evaluating Differential Diagnosis and the Likelihood of Malignancy.

Jellinek Nathaniel J, Lipner Shari R

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Longitudinal erythronychia (LE) is an underappreciated and understudied clinical diagnosis. The rates of malignancy and prevalence within the differential diagnosis are not well-established.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of biopsy-proven diagnoses in patients presenting with LE.

METHODS

Retrospective single-center study of 65 consecutive patients undergoing biopsy of LE.

RESULTS

Malignancy was identified in only 3 of 65 cases (in situ carcinoma in 2 and melanoma in 1). Onychopapilloma was the most common diagnosis in cases of localized LE. Lichen planus was the most common diagnosis in cases of polydactylous (generalized) LE.

CONCLUSION

Longitudinal erythronychia is not a rare clinical finding. The differential diagnosis includes neoplasms, inflammatory conditions, infectious conditions, and scar. Clinicopathologic correlation is required to make the diagnosis in many cases. Malignancy is uncommon, but not rare, with squamous cell carcinoma in situ representing the most common malignancy.

Для цитирования: Jellinek Nathaniel J, Lipner Shari R. Longitudinal Erythronychia: Retrospective Single-Center Study Evaluating Differential Diagnosis and the Likelihood of Malignancy.. Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]. 2016. DOI: 10.1097/dss.0000000000000594.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.