Peri-wound skin lesions of allergic nature

Peri-wound dermatoses are a fairly common occurrence in clinical practice. In general, they are all allergic in nature and occur on the skin around the surface area of both primary and postoperative wounds. Peri-wound skin lesions can develop as paratraumatic eczema, simple contact or allergic dermatitis. All these dermatoses can be complicated by a secondary bacterial or mycotic infection, both exogenous and endogenous, which significantly complicates the course of the dermatitis itself and wound healing. The patient is exposed to a fairly large number of potential allergens in the course of surgical care provided at all stages: both in the pre- and postoperative period, and during the surgical intervention. Among them may be drugs and antiseptics, surgical sutures, implants, and even latex gloves of healthcare practitioners in some cases. When it comes to potential allergens, foci of chronic infection in the patient’s body, as well as secondary wound infections should be noted as a separate matter. The presence of peri-wound dermatoses is the most common cause of delayed surgical debridement, and can also become an obstacle to surgical treatment and healing of the wound surface. In addition, pre-existing paratraumatic eczema can progress to a chronic course and contribute to the further spread of the inflammatory process. Thus, peri-wound dermatoses are a pressing interdisciplinary issue. Patients with peri-wound dermatoses require a personalized selection of combination therapy and additional consultative assistance from highly specialized doctors. Fixed-dose topical glucocorticoids combined with antibiotics and antimycotics may be the drugs of choice for patients with peri-wound eczematous process, with due account for complex pathogenetic effects and ease of use. The article describes clinical cases of dermatoses developed in surgical patients.

1. Кубанов АА, Хардикова СА, Заславский ДВ, Новиков ЮА, Радул ЕВ, Правдина ОВ и др. Экзема: клинические рекомендации. М.; 2021. 54 с. Режим доступа: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/recomend/246_2.

2. Bowen C, Bidinger J, Hivnor C, Hoover A, Henning JS. Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate. Cutis. 2014;94(4):183–186. Available at: https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/CT094100183.pdf.

3. Bigliardi PL, Alsagoff SAL, El-Kafrawi HY, Pyon JK, Wa CTC, Villa MA. Povidone iodine in wound healing: A review of current concepts and practices. Int J Surg. 2017;44:260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.06.073.

4. Kaur M, Karadia P, Singh S. Povidone-iodine-induced disseminated irritant contact dermatitis. BMJ Case Rep. 2022;15(11):e251926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2022-251926.

5. Velázquez D, Zamberk P, Suárez R, Lázaro P. Allergic contact dermatitis to povidone-iodine. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(6):348–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2008.01559.x.

6. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM et al. Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810988.

7. Toholka R, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine. Australas J Dermatol. 2013;54(4):303–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajd.12087.

8. García-Gavín J, Lissens R, Timmermans A, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isopropyl alcohol: a missed allergen? Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(2):101–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536. 2011.01936.x.

9. Haugen RN, Brown CW. Case reports: type I hypersensitivity to lidocaine. J Drugs Dermatol. 2007;6(12):1222–1223. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18189063/.

10. Pontén A, Hamnerius N, Bruze M, Hansson C, Persson C, Svedman C et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(2):103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12010.

11. Middleton S, Toms A. Allergy in total knee arthroplasty: a review of the facts. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(4):437–441. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.36767.

12. Atanaskova Mesinkovska N, Tellez A, Molina L, Honari G, Sood A, Barsoum W, Taylor JS. The effect of patch testing on surgical practices and outcomes in orthopedic patients with metal implants. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(6):687–693. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2011.2561.

13. Schalock PC, Menné T, Johansen JD, Taylor JS, Maibach HI, Lidén C et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants – diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(1):4–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01971.x.

14. Engler RJ, Weber CB, Turnicky R. Hypersensitivity to chromated catgut sutures: a case report and review of the literature. Ann Allergy. 1986;56(4):317–320. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3963524/.

15. Mullins RJ, Richards C, Walker T. Allergic reactions to oral, surgical and topical bovine collagen. Anaphylactic risk for surgeons. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1996;24(3):257–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.1996.tb01589.x.

16. Sprowson AP, Jensen CD, Parsons N, Partington P, Emmerson K, Carluke I et al. The effect of triclosan coated sutures on rate of surgical site infection after hip and knee replacement: a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:237. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-237.