Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug · 2013
Contact sensitization to modern wound dressings in 70 patients with chronic leg ulcers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Renner Regina, Simon Jan C, Treudler Regina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic leg ulcers typically experience contact allergy to topical treatments. Although declared as hypoallergenic, modern wound dressings have caused several reported cases of contact allergy.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate any allergenic potential of modern wound dressings in patients with leg ulcers.
METHODS: Seventy-one patients were included in our prospective observation. Patch tests were performed with a selection of 10 modern wound dressings and with selected allergens according to series of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG).
RESULTS: Of 70 patients eligible for evaluation, 12 (17%) were positive for the hydrogel NuGel, followed by the hydrocolloid NuDerm (n = 7/70, 10%) and the ionic silver-containing wound dressing Aquacel Ag and the gauze Adaptic (both n = 4/70, 5%). Patients with recalcitrant ulcers of prolonged duration showed a significant higher number of epicutaneous sensitizations to wound dressings than patients with shorter ulcer duration.
CONCLUSIONS: The allergenic potential of modern wound dressings should not be underestimated. There is need for precise declaration of all ingredients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate any allergenic potential of modern wound dressings in patients with leg ulcers.
METHODS: Seventy-one patients were included in our prospective observation. Patch tests were performed with a selection of 10 modern wound dressings and with selected allergens according to series of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG).
RESULTS: Of 70 patients eligible for evaluation, 12 (17%) were positive for the hydrogel NuGel, followed by the hydrocolloid NuDerm (n = 7/70, 10%) and the ionic silver-containing wound dressing Aquacel Ag and the gauze Adaptic (both n = 4/70, 5%). Patients with recalcitrant ulcers of prolonged duration showed a significant higher number of epicutaneous sensitizations to wound dressings than patients with shorter ulcer duration.
CONCLUSIONS: The allergenic potential of modern wound dressings should not be underestimated. There is need for precise declaration of all ingredients.