Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Epikutantestung bei Patienten mit Ulcus cruris unter besonderer Berücksichtigung moderner Wundprodukte

Patch testing in patients with leg ulcers with special regard to modern wound products

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Hautarzt Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Patienten mit einem Ulcus cruris haben häufig Kontaktsensibilisierungen. Moderne Wundauflagen werden oft als hypoallergen proklamiert.

Ziel

Untersuchung des Sensibilisierungsspektrums von Ulkuspatienten hinsichtlich wundrelevanter Kontaktstoffe und insbesondere moderner Wundprodukte.

Material und Methoden

Es wurden 95 Patienten mit einem Ulcus cruris mit DKG-Reihen und einer Reihe häufig verwendeter Wundprodukte mittels Epikutantestung (ECT) getestet.

Ergebnisse

Mindestens eine positive ECT-Reaktion hatten 61% der Patienten. Die häufigsten Reaktionen fanden sich für tert. Butylhydrochinon, Polyvidon-Jod, Perubalsam, ein Hydrogel, Duftstoffmix I, Duftstoffmix II, Amerchol L101 und Gentamicin. Insgesamt gab es 14 Reaktionen auf Produkte der modernen Wundversorgung. Die höchsten Sensibilisierungsraten waren dabei für Hydrokolloide und Hydrogele nachweisbar. Patienten mit Sensibilisierungen gegen moderne Wundauflagen wiesen insgesamt signifikant mehr positive Testreaktionen auf.

Schlussfolgerungen

Bei Patienten mit Ulcus cruris gibt es nicht selten Sensibilisierungen gegenüber modernen Wundprodukten, v. a. Hydrogelen. Sie sollten auch in der Diagnostik berücksichtigt werden.

Abstract

Background

Patients with leg ulcers often have contact sensitizations. Modern wound care products claim low allergic potential.

Object

To analyze the patch test results in leg ulcer patients with focus on modern care wound products.

Material and Methods

95 leg ulcer patients were tested with the standard German patch test series as well as frequently used wound care products.

Results

61% of the patients had at least one positive reaction. Most frequent reactions were seen with tert-butylhydroquinone, povidone iodine, balsam of Peru, a hydrogel, fragrance mix I and II, Amerchol L101 and gentamicin. There were 14 reactions to modern wound care products with highest sensitization rates for hydrocolloids and hydrogels. Patients sensitized to wound care products had significantly more positive patch test reactions.

Conclusion

There are sensitisations against modern wound care products, especially hydrogels. That should be considered in patch test of leg ulcer patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Barraud A, Collet E, Le Coz CJ et al (2009) Contact allergy in chronic leg ulcers: results of a multicentre study carried out in 423 patients and proposal for an updated series of patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 60:279–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Calow T, Oberle K, Bruckner-Tuderman L et al (2009) Contact dermatitis due to use of Octenisept in wound care. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 7:759–765

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Erdmann S, Hertl M, Merk HF (1999) Allergic contact dermatitis from povidone-iodine. Contact Dermatitis 40:331–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Erdmann SM, Merk HF (2003) Kontaktsensibilisierungen auf Externa. Hautarzt 54:331–337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Freise J, Kohaus S, Korber A et al (2008) Contact sensitiziation in patients with chronic wounds: results of a prospective investigation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 22:1203–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallenkemper G, Rabe E, Bauer R (1998) Contact sensitiziation in chronic venous insufficiency: modern wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis 38:274–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jankicevic J, Vesic S, Vukicevic J et al (2008) Contact sensitivity in patients with venous leg ulcers in Serbia: comparison with contact dermatitis patients and relationsship to ulcer duration. Contact Dermatitis 58:32–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katsarou-Katsari A, Armenaka M, Katsenis K et al (1998) Contact allergens in patients with leg ulcers. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 11:9–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Koo FP, Piletta-Zanin P, Politta-Sanchez S et al (2008) Allergic contact dermatitis to carboxymethylcellulose in Comfeel®hydrocolloid dressing. Contact Dermatitis 58:375–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Le Coz CJ, Scrivener Y, Santinelli F, Heid E (1998) Contact sensitization in leg ulcers. Ann Dermatol Venerol 125:694–699

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lehnen M, Kohaus S, Körber A et al (2006) Kontaktsensibilisierung von Patienten mit chronischen Wunden. Hautarzt 57:303–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W (2005) Skin-sensitizing and irritant properties of propylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis 53:247–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim KS, Tang MB, Goon AT, Leow YH (2007) Contact sensitization in patients with chronic venous leg ulcers in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 56:94–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Machet L, Couhé C, Perrinaud A et al (2004) A high prevalence of sensitization still persists in leg ulcer patients: a retrospective series of 106 patients tested between 2001 and 2002 and a meta-anlaysis of 1975–2003 data. Br J Dermatol 150:929–935

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mangelsdorf HC, Fleischer Ab, Sheretz EF (1996) Patch testing in an aged population without dermatitis: high prevalence of patch test positivity. Am J Contact Dermat 7:155–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marks JG (1982) Allergic contact dermatitis to povidone iodine. J Am Acad Dermatol 6:473–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pereira TM, Flour M, Goossens A (2007) Allergic contact dermatitis from modified colophonium in wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis 56:5–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reichert-Penetrat S, Barbaud A, Weber M, Schmutz JL (1999) Leg ulcers. Allergologic studies of 359 cases. Ann Dermatol Venereol 126:131–135

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saap L, Fahim S, Arsenault E et al (2004) Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations: a north American study. Arch Dermatol 140:1241–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schnuch A, Aberer W, Agathos M et al (2008) Durchführung des Epikutantests mit Kontaktallergenen. J Dtsch Ges Dermatol 6:770–775

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O (2002) Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the Clinical Epidemiology and Drug Utilisation Research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 47: 32–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smart V, Alavi A, Coutts P et al (2008) Contact allergens in persons with leg ulcers: a canadian study in contact sensitization. Int J Low Extreme Wounds 7:120–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tavadia S, Bianchi J, Dawe RS et al (2003) Allergic contact dermatitis in venous leg ulcer patients. Contact Dermatitis 48:261–265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tomljanovic-Veselski M, Lipozencic J, Lugovic L (2007) Contact allergy to special and standard allergens in patients with venous ulcers. Coll Antropol 31:751–756

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Gudrunstr. 56, 44791, Bochum, Deutschland

    S. Reich-Schupke, J. Kurscheidt, C. Appelhans, A. Kreuter, P. Altmeyer & M. Stücker

Authors
  1. S. Reich-Schupke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Kurscheidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Appelhans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Kreuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Altmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Stücker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Reich-Schupke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reich-Schupke, S., Kurscheidt, J., Appelhans, C. et al. Epikutantestung bei Patienten mit Ulcus cruris unter besonderer Berücksichtigung moderner Wundprodukte. Hautarzt 61, 593–597 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-010-1972-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-010-1972-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation