Contact Dermatitis

Sulfur spring dermatitis is characterized by multiple punched-out erosions and pits. In prior case reports, patients often presented with painful swollen lesions that developed within 24 hours of bathing in hot sulfur springs.¹ Because spa therapy and thermal spring baths are common in modern society, dermatologists should be aware of sulfur spring dermatitis as a potential adverse effect.

Case Report

A healthy 65-year-old man presented with painful skin lesions on the legs that developed after bathing for 25 minutes in a hot sulfur spring 1 day prior. The patient had no history of dermatologic disease. He reported a 10-year history of bathing in a hot sulfur spring for 20 minutes every 3 days in the winter. This time, he bathed 5 minutes longer than usual. No skin condition was noted prior to bathing, but he reported feeling a tickling sensation and scratching the legs while he was immersed in the water. One hour after bathing, he noted confluent, punched-out, round ulcers with peripheral erythema on the thighs and shins (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Multiple confluent, punched-out, round ulcers with peripheral erythema on the thighs and shins (A and B).

Figure 2. The epidermis showed sharply demarcated, homogeneous necrosis (A)(H&E, original magni-fication ×40). Higher magnification demonstrated homogeneous coagulation necrosis of the epidermis, with many neutrophils present under the necrosis (B)(H&E, original magnification ×200).

A skin biopsy revealed sharply demarcated, homogeneous coagulation necrosis of the epidermis. Many neutrophils were present under the necrosis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff and acid-fast stains were negative for infectious organisms, and a skin tissue culture yielded negative results. Intensive wound care was started with nitrofurazone ointment 0.2%. The ulcers healed gradually in the following months with scar formation and hyperpigmentation.

Comment

Thermal sulfur baths are a form of balneotherapy promoted in many cultures for improvement of skin conditions; however, certain uncommon skin problems may occur after bathing in hot sulfur springs.² In particular, sulfur spring dermatitis is a potential adverse effect.

Thermal sulfur water is known to exert anti-inflammatory, keratoplastic, and antipruriginous effects. As a result, it often is used in many cultures as an alternative treatment of various skin conditions.^2-4 Moreover, thermal sulfur baths are popular in northeastern Asian countries for their effects on mental health.⁵ Hot springs in northern Taiwan, which contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, sulfate, and sulfur differ from other thermal springs in that they are rather acidic in nature and release geothermal energy from volcanic activity.⁶ In addition to hot sulfur springs, there are neutral salt and CO₂ springs in Taiwan.⁵ However, spring dermatitis has only been associated with bathing in hot sulfur springs due to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide that break down keratin and cause dissolution of the stratum corneum.⁷

The incidence of sulfur spring dermatitis is unknown. Although the largest known case series reported 44 cases occurring within a decade in Taiwan,¹ it is rarely seen in our daily practice. Previously reported cases of sulfur spring dermatitis noted clinical findings of swelling of the affected area followed by punched-out erosions with surrounding erythema. Most lesions gradually healed with dry brownish crusts. A patch test with sulfur spring water and sulfur compounds showed negative results; therefore, the mechanism is unlikely to be allergic reaction.¹ The clinical differential diagnosis includes factitious ulcers as well as viral and fungal infections. A tissue culture should be performed to exclude infectious conditions.

This characteristic skin disease does not present in all individuals after bathing in hot sulfur springs. Lesions may present anywhere on the body with a predilection for skin folds, including the penis and scrotum. Preexisting skin conditions such as pruritus and xerosis are considered to be contributing factors. The possible etiology of sulfur spring dermatitis may be acid irritation from the unstable amount of soluble sulfur in the water, which is enhanced by the heat.¹ In our patient, no prior skin disease was noted, but he scratched the skin on the thighs while bathing, which may have contributed to the development of lesions in this area rather than in the skin folds.

The skin biopsy specimen demonstrated epidermal coagulation necrosis, mild superficial dermal damage, and preservation of the pilosebaceous appendages. The ulcers were painful during healing and resolved with scarring and hyperpigmentation. The histopathologic findings and clinical course in our patient were similar to cases of superficial second-degree burns.⁸ It is possible that the keratoplastic effect of sulfur at high concentrations along with thermal water caused the skin condition.

Conclusion

Individuals who engage in thermal sulfur baths should be aware of potential adverse effects such as sulfur spring dermatitis, especially those with preexisting skin disorders.

Sulfur spring dermatitis is characterized by multiple punched-out erosions and pits. In prior case reports, patients often presented with painful swollen lesions that developed within 24 hours of bathing in hot sulfur springs.¹ Because spa therapy and thermal spring baths are common in modern society, dermatologists should be aware of sulfur spring dermatitis as a potential adverse effect.

Case Report

A healthy 65-year-old man presented with painful skin lesions on the legs that developed after bathing for 25 minutes in a hot sulfur spring 1 day prior. The patient had no history of dermatologic disease. He reported a 10-year history of bathing in a hot sulfur spring for 20 minutes every 3 days in the winter. This time, he bathed 5 minutes longer than usual. No skin condition was noted prior to bathing, but he reported feeling a tickling sensation and scratching the legs while he was immersed in the water. One hour after bathing, he noted confluent, punched-out, round ulcers with peripheral erythema on the thighs and shins (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Multiple confluent, punched-out, round ulcers with peripheral erythema on the thighs and shins (A and B).

Figure 2. The epidermis showed sharply demarcated, homogeneous necrosis (A)(H&E, original magni-fication ×40). Higher magnification demonstrated homogeneous coagulation necrosis of the epidermis, with many neutrophils present under the necrosis (B)(H&E, original magnification ×200).

A skin biopsy revealed sharply demarcated, homogeneous coagulation necrosis of the epidermis. Many neutrophils were present under the necrosis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff and acid-fast stains were negative for infectious organisms, and a skin tissue culture yielded negative results. Intensive wound care was started with nitrofurazone ointment 0.2%. The ulcers healed gradually in the following months with scar formation and hyperpigmentation.

Comment

Thermal sulfur baths are a form of balneotherapy promoted in many cultures for improvement of skin conditions; however, certain uncommon skin problems may occur after bathing in hot sulfur springs.² In particular, sulfur spring dermatitis is a potential adverse effect.

Thermal sulfur water is known to exert anti-inflammatory, keratoplastic, and antipruriginous effects. As a result, it often is used in many cultures as an alternative treatment of various skin conditions.^2-4 Moreover, thermal sulfur baths are popular in northeastern Asian countries for their effects on mental health.⁵ Hot springs in northern Taiwan, which contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, sulfate, and sulfur differ from other thermal springs in that they are rather acidic in nature and release geothermal energy from volcanic activity.⁶ In addition to hot sulfur springs, there are neutral salt and CO₂ springs in Taiwan.⁵ However, spring dermatitis has only been associated with bathing in hot sulfur springs due to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide that break down keratin and cause dissolution of the stratum corneum.⁷

The incidence of sulfur spring dermatitis is unknown. Although the largest known case series reported 44 cases occurring within a decade in Taiwan,¹ it is rarely seen in our daily practice. Previously reported cases of sulfur spring dermatitis noted clinical findings of swelling of the affected area followed by punched-out erosions with surrounding erythema. Most lesions gradually healed with dry brownish crusts. A patch test with sulfur spring water and sulfur compounds showed negative results; therefore, the mechanism is unlikely to be allergic reaction.¹ The clinical differential diagnosis includes factitious ulcers as well as viral and fungal infections. A tissue culture should be performed to exclude infectious conditions.

This characteristic skin disease does not present in all individuals after bathing in hot sulfur springs. Lesions may present anywhere on the body with a predilection for skin folds, including the penis and scrotum. Preexisting skin conditions such as pruritus and xerosis are considered to be contributing factors. The possible etiology of sulfur spring dermatitis may be acid irritation from the unstable amount of soluble sulfur in the water, which is enhanced by the heat.¹ In our patient, no prior skin disease was noted, but he scratched the skin on the thighs while bathing, which may have contributed to the development of lesions in this area rather than in the skin folds.

The skin biopsy specimen demonstrated epidermal coagulation necrosis, mild superficial dermal damage, and preservation of the pilosebaceous appendages. The ulcers were painful during healing and resolved with scarring and hyperpigmentation. The histopathologic findings and clinical course in our patient were similar to cases of superficial second-degree burns.⁸ It is possible that the keratoplastic effect of sulfur at high concentrations along with thermal water caused the skin condition.

Conclusion

Individuals who engage in thermal sulfur baths should be aware of potential adverse effects such as sulfur spring dermatitis, especially those with preexisting skin disorders.

Sulfur spring dermatitis is characterized by multiple punched-out erosions and pits. In prior case reports, patients often presented with painful swollen lesions that developed within 24 hours of bathing in hot sulfur springs.¹ Because spa therapy and thermal spring baths are common in modern society, dermatologists should be aware of sulfur spring dermatitis as a potential adverse effect.

Case Report

A healthy 65-year-old man presented with painful skin lesions on the legs that developed after bathing for 25 minutes in a hot sulfur spring 1 day prior. The patient had no history of dermatologic disease. He reported a 10-year history of bathing in a hot sulfur spring for 20 minutes every 3 days in the winter. This time, he bathed 5 minutes longer than usual. No skin condition was noted prior to bathing, but he reported feeling a tickling sensation and scratching the legs while he was immersed in the water. One hour after bathing, he noted confluent, punched-out, round ulcers with peripheral erythema on the thighs and shins (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Multiple confluent, punched-out, round ulcers with peripheral erythema on the thighs and shins (A and B).

Figure 2. The epidermis showed sharply demarcated, homogeneous necrosis (A)(H&E, original magni-fication ×40). Higher magnification demonstrated homogeneous coagulation necrosis of the epidermis, with many neutrophils present under the necrosis (B)(H&E, original magnification ×200).

A skin biopsy revealed sharply demarcated, homogeneous coagulation necrosis of the epidermis. Many neutrophils were present under the necrosis (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff and acid-fast stains were negative for infectious organisms, and a skin tissue culture yielded negative results. Intensive wound care was started with nitrofurazone ointment 0.2%. The ulcers healed gradually in the following months with scar formation and hyperpigmentation.

Comment

Thermal sulfur baths are a form of balneotherapy promoted in many cultures for improvement of skin conditions; however, certain uncommon skin problems may occur after bathing in hot sulfur springs.² In particular, sulfur spring dermatitis is a potential adverse effect.

Thermal sulfur water is known to exert anti-inflammatory, keratoplastic, and antipruriginous effects. As a result, it often is used in many cultures as an alternative treatment of various skin conditions.^2-4 Moreover, thermal sulfur baths are popular in northeastern Asian countries for their effects on mental health.⁵ Hot springs in northern Taiwan, which contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, sulfate, and sulfur differ from other thermal springs in that they are rather acidic in nature and release geothermal energy from volcanic activity.⁶ In addition to hot sulfur springs, there are neutral salt and CO₂ springs in Taiwan.⁵ However, spring dermatitis has only been associated with bathing in hot sulfur springs due to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide that break down keratin and cause dissolution of the stratum corneum.⁷

The incidence of sulfur spring dermatitis is unknown. Although the largest known case series reported 44 cases occurring within a decade in Taiwan,¹ it is rarely seen in our daily practice. Previously reported cases of sulfur spring dermatitis noted clinical findings of swelling of the affected area followed by punched-out erosions with surrounding erythema. Most lesions gradually healed with dry brownish crusts. A patch test with sulfur spring water and sulfur compounds showed negative results; therefore, the mechanism is unlikely to be allergic reaction.¹ The clinical differential diagnosis includes factitious ulcers as well as viral and fungal infections. A tissue culture should be performed to exclude infectious conditions.

This characteristic skin disease does not present in all individuals after bathing in hot sulfur springs. Lesions may present anywhere on the body with a predilection for skin folds, including the penis and scrotum. Preexisting skin conditions such as pruritus and xerosis are considered to be contributing factors. The possible etiology of sulfur spring dermatitis may be acid irritation from the unstable amount of soluble sulfur in the water, which is enhanced by the heat.¹ In our patient, no prior skin disease was noted, but he scratched the skin on the thighs while bathing, which may have contributed to the development of lesions in this area rather than in the skin folds.

The skin biopsy specimen demonstrated epidermal coagulation necrosis, mild superficial dermal damage, and preservation of the pilosebaceous appendages. The ulcers were painful during healing and resolved with scarring and hyperpigmentation. The histopathologic findings and clinical course in our patient were similar to cases of superficial second-degree burns.⁸ It is possible that the keratoplastic effect of sulfur at high concentrations along with thermal water caused the skin condition.

Conclusion

Individuals who engage in thermal sulfur baths should be aware of potential adverse effects such as sulfur spring dermatitis, especially those with preexisting skin disorders.

Cyanoacrylates are widely used in adhesive products, with applications ranging from household products to nail and beauty salons and even dentistry. A topical skin adhesive containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate was approved in 1998 for topical application for closure of skin edges of wounds from surgical incisions.¹ Usually cyanoacrylates are not strong sensitizers, and despite their extensive use, there have been relatively few reports of associated allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).^2-5 We report 4 cases of ACD to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate used in postsurgical wound closures as confirmed by patch tests.

Case Reports

Patient 1

A 33-year-old woman presented with an intensely pruritic peri-incisional rash on the lower back and right buttock of 1 week’s duration. The eruption started roughly 1 week following surgical implantation of a spinal cord stimulator for treatment of chronic back pain. Both incisions made during the implantation were closed with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate. The patient denied any prior exposure to topical skin adhesives or any history of contact dermatitis to nickel or other materials. The patient did not dress the wounds and did not apply topical agents to the area.

Physical examination revealed 6- to 8-cm linear surgical scars on the midline lumbar back and superior right buttock with surrounding excoriated erythematous papules coalescing into plaques consistent with acute eczematous dermatitis (Figure 1). Similar papules and plaques were scattered across the abdomen and chest. She was given triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% twice daily and hydroxyzine pamoate 25 mg 3 times daily for itching. The surgical wounds healed within 2 weeks of presentation with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation surrounding the scars.

Figure 1. Surgical scars with surrounding excoriated erythematous papules coalescing into plaques on the midline lumbar back (A) and superior right buttock (B).

Six weeks later she underwent patch testing to confirm the diagnosis. She was screened using the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard 65-allergen series and a miscellaneous tray including hardware obtained from the spinal cord stimulator device manufacturer. A use test to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate also was performed. At 96 hours, true positives included cinnamic aldehyde (1+), nickel (1+), bacitracin (1+), fragrance mix (2+), disperse blue dyes 106 and 124 (2+), and 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (3+)(1+=weak positive; 2+=strong positive; 3+=extreme reaction). There was no response to any components of the device. The pattern of dermatitis and positive patch-test results strongly supported the diagnosis of ACD to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate.

Patients 2, 3, and 4

Three patients—a 65-year-old woman, a 35-year-old woman, and a 44-year-old woman—presented to us with eczematous dermatitis at laparoscopic portal sites that were closed with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (Figures 2 and 3). They presented approximately 1 week following laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, laparoscopic left hepatectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. None of these  3 patients had been using any topical medications. All of them had a positive reaction (2+) to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate on use testing. Interestingly, use tests for 2 other cyanoacrylates containing 2-butyl cyanoacrylate were negative in 2 patients.

Figure 2. Acute eczematous plaques at wound closures.

Figure 3. Coalescing acute eczematous plaques focused at wound closures.

Although patient 1 reported no prior exposure to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate, these 3 additional patients reported prior exposure with no reaction. Other possible contact allergens associated with wound closure included iodine, topical antibiotics, and dressing tape.

Comment

Contact allergies to acrylates are not uncommon. In a series of 275 patients, Kanerva et al⁶ found that 17.5% of patients had an allergic reaction to at least 1 acrylate or methacrylate. In the same series, no allergic reactions to cyanoacrylates were noted.⁶ The role of methacrylates in the development of occupational ACD and irritant dermatitis has been well characterized among dentists, orthopedic surgeons, beauticians, and industrial workers who are commonly exposed to these agents.^7-12 Partially because of their longer carbon chains, cyanoacrylates have reduced toxicity and improved bonding strength as well as flexibility. Given their availability and the ease and speed of their use, skin adhesives have become widely used in the closure of surgical wounds.^13-16

Postoperative contact dermatitis is problematic, as patients are exposed to many potential allergens during surgery. In our clinical practice, the most common allergens causing ACD associated with surgery are iodine, topical antibiotics (ie, bacitracin, neomycin), tape adhesives, suture materials, and less commonly surgical hardware. Although they are rarely reported, contact allergies to skin adhesives such as cyanoacrylates are of particular importance because they may complicate surgical wounds, leading to dehiscence, infection, and scarring, among other complications. In our patients, there were no adverse outcomes in wound healing with the exception of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Under ideal conditions, 2-octyl cyanoacrylate generally is not a strong sensitizer; however, application to open wounds or thinner skin such as the eyelids may permit exposure of antigen-presenting cells to cyanoacrylate monomers, thereby initiating sensitization. Postsurgical occlusive dressings, which often are left in place for 7 to 14 days, also may contribute to sensitization. The role of the degradation of skin adhesive products in the development of contact dermatitis is unknown.

Management of ACD from skin adhesives should involve the immediate removal of any remaining adhesive. One manufacturer recommends removal of the product using acetone or petroleum jelly.¹ In our experience, rubbing the adhesive with 2×2-in gauze pads or using forceps have been successful methods for removal. The use of petroleum jelly prior to rubbing with gauze also can aid in removal of the adhesive. Warm water soaks and soap also may be helpful but are not expected to immediately loosen the bond. A mid-potency steroid ointment such as triamcinolone may be effective in treating dermatitis, though the use of higher-potency steroids such as clobetasol may be needed for severe reactions.^1,2

As members of the cyano group, cyanoacrylates are highly reactive molecules that polymerize and rapidly bind to the stratum corneum when they come in contact with traces of water. During polymerization, the individual constituents or monomer cyanoacrylate molecules are joined into a polymer chain, which should be trapped by keratinocytes and not reach immunomodulators^2,10; however, as postulated during the first report of contact dermatitis, an arid environment could delay polymerization and increase the risk of sensitization.² The first report was made in Las Vegas, Nevada,² and our cases presented in San Antonio, Texas.

There currently are 2 main cutaneous adhesives containing cyanoacrylate on the market, including 2-octyl cyanoacrylate and 2-butyl cyanoacrylate. These products are known by various trade names and differ primarily in the length of the carbon chain in the cyanoacrylate. A dye is added to allow better visibility of the glue during application, and a plasticizer increases viscosity and accelerates polymerization. The 2 most widely used products contain the same dye (D&C Violet No. 2) and similar but proprietary plasticizers.

Figure 4. When conducting use tests to determine if plasticizers or dyes in acrylate adhesive products may be potential allergens, a reaction only to product 1 would suggest that 2-octyl cyanoacrylate is to blame. A reaction to products 2 and 3 but not product 1 would suggest 2-butyl cyanoacrylate as a sensitizer, while a reaction to products 1 and 2 but not product 3 would suggest that the dye is responsible.

Although plasticizers and dyes may be potential contact allergens, we postulated that the cyanoacrylate was the responsible sensitizer in our cases. Because the individual ingredients were not readily available for use testing, we devised a logical method to attempt to determine the specific component of the skin adhesive that was responsible for contact sensitization (Figure 4). Patients 3 and 4 in our series were tested using this method and were found to be sensitive to the product containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate but not the products containing 2-butyl cyanoacrylate.

Conclusion

Given the many advantages of cyanoacrylates, it is likely that their use in skin adhesive products will continue to increase. Our 4 patients may represent a rise in the incidence of ACD associated with increased use of skin adhesives, but it is important to look critically at this agent when patients present with postoperative pruritus in the absence of topical bacitracin or neomycin use and surgical dressing irritation. By using the technique we described, it is possible to identify the component responsible for the reaction; however, in the future, the exact mechanisms of sensitization and the specific components should be further elucidated by researchers working in conjunction with the manufacturers. Use testing on abraded skin and/or under occlusive dressings more closely mimics the initial exposure and may have a role in determining true allergy.

Cyanoacrylates are widely used in adhesive products, with applications ranging from household products to nail and beauty salons and even dentistry. A topical skin adhesive containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate was approved in 1998 for topical application for closure of skin edges of wounds from surgical incisions.¹ Usually cyanoacrylates are not strong sensitizers, and despite their extensive use, there have been relatively few reports of associated allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).^2-5 We report 4 cases of ACD to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate used in postsurgical wound closures as confirmed by patch tests.

Case Reports

Patient 1

A 33-year-old woman presented with an intensely pruritic peri-incisional rash on the lower back and right buttock of 1 week’s duration. The eruption started roughly 1 week following surgical implantation of a spinal cord stimulator for treatment of chronic back pain. Both incisions made during the implantation were closed with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate. The patient denied any prior exposure to topical skin adhesives or any history of contact dermatitis to nickel or other materials. The patient did not dress the wounds and did not apply topical agents to the area.

Physical examination revealed 6- to 8-cm linear surgical scars on the midline lumbar back and superior right buttock with surrounding excoriated erythematous papules coalescing into plaques consistent with acute eczematous dermatitis (Figure 1). Similar papules and plaques were scattered across the abdomen and chest. She was given triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% twice daily and hydroxyzine pamoate 25 mg 3 times daily for itching. The surgical wounds healed within 2 weeks of presentation with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation surrounding the scars.

Figure 1. Surgical scars with surrounding excoriated erythematous papules coalescing into plaques on the midline lumbar back (A) and superior right buttock (B).

Six weeks later she underwent patch testing to confirm the diagnosis. She was screened using the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard 65-allergen series and a miscellaneous tray including hardware obtained from the spinal cord stimulator device manufacturer. A use test to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate also was performed. At 96 hours, true positives included cinnamic aldehyde (1+), nickel (1+), bacitracin (1+), fragrance mix (2+), disperse blue dyes 106 and 124 (2+), and 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (3+)(1+=weak positive; 2+=strong positive; 3+=extreme reaction). There was no response to any components of the device. The pattern of dermatitis and positive patch-test results strongly supported the diagnosis of ACD to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate.

Patients 2, 3, and 4

Three patients—a 65-year-old woman, a 35-year-old woman, and a 44-year-old woman—presented to us with eczematous dermatitis at laparoscopic portal sites that were closed with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (Figures 2 and 3). They presented approximately 1 week following laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, laparoscopic left hepatectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. None of these  3 patients had been using any topical medications. All of them had a positive reaction (2+) to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate on use testing. Interestingly, use tests for 2 other cyanoacrylates containing 2-butyl cyanoacrylate were negative in 2 patients.

Figure 2. Acute eczematous plaques at wound closures.

Figure 3. Coalescing acute eczematous plaques focused at wound closures.

Although patient 1 reported no prior exposure to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate, these 3 additional patients reported prior exposure with no reaction. Other possible contact allergens associated with wound closure included iodine, topical antibiotics, and dressing tape.

Comment

Contact allergies to acrylates are not uncommon. In a series of 275 patients, Kanerva et al⁶ found that 17.5% of patients had an allergic reaction to at least 1 acrylate or methacrylate. In the same series, no allergic reactions to cyanoacrylates were noted.⁶ The role of methacrylates in the development of occupational ACD and irritant dermatitis has been well characterized among dentists, orthopedic surgeons, beauticians, and industrial workers who are commonly exposed to these agents.^7-12 Partially because of their longer carbon chains, cyanoacrylates have reduced toxicity and improved bonding strength as well as flexibility. Given their availability and the ease and speed of their use, skin adhesives have become widely used in the closure of surgical wounds.^13-16

Postoperative contact dermatitis is problematic, as patients are exposed to many potential allergens during surgery. In our clinical practice, the most common allergens causing ACD associated with surgery are iodine, topical antibiotics (ie, bacitracin, neomycin), tape adhesives, suture materials, and less commonly surgical hardware. Although they are rarely reported, contact allergies to skin adhesives such as cyanoacrylates are of particular importance because they may complicate surgical wounds, leading to dehiscence, infection, and scarring, among other complications. In our patients, there were no adverse outcomes in wound healing with the exception of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Under ideal conditions, 2-octyl cyanoacrylate generally is not a strong sensitizer; however, application to open wounds or thinner skin such as the eyelids may permit exposure of antigen-presenting cells to cyanoacrylate monomers, thereby initiating sensitization. Postsurgical occlusive dressings, which often are left in place for 7 to 14 days, also may contribute to sensitization. The role of the degradation of skin adhesive products in the development of contact dermatitis is unknown.

Management of ACD from skin adhesives should involve the immediate removal of any remaining adhesive. One manufacturer recommends removal of the product using acetone or petroleum jelly.¹ In our experience, rubbing the adhesive with 2×2-in gauze pads or using forceps have been successful methods for removal. The use of petroleum jelly prior to rubbing with gauze also can aid in removal of the adhesive. Warm water soaks and soap also may be helpful but are not expected to immediately loosen the bond. A mid-potency steroid ointment such as triamcinolone may be effective in treating dermatitis, though the use of higher-potency steroids such as clobetasol may be needed for severe reactions.^1,2

As members of the cyano group, cyanoacrylates are highly reactive molecules that polymerize and rapidly bind to the stratum corneum when they come in contact with traces of water. During polymerization, the individual constituents or monomer cyanoacrylate molecules are joined into a polymer chain, which should be trapped by keratinocytes and not reach immunomodulators^2,10; however, as postulated during the first report of contact dermatitis, an arid environment could delay polymerization and increase the risk of sensitization.² The first report was made in Las Vegas, Nevada,² and our cases presented in San Antonio, Texas.

There currently are 2 main cutaneous adhesives containing cyanoacrylate on the market, including 2-octyl cyanoacrylate and 2-butyl cyanoacrylate. These products are known by various trade names and differ primarily in the length of the carbon chain in the cyanoacrylate. A dye is added to allow better visibility of the glue during application, and a plasticizer increases viscosity and accelerates polymerization. The 2 most widely used products contain the same dye (D&C Violet No. 2) and similar but proprietary plasticizers.

Figure 4. When conducting use tests to determine if plasticizers or dyes in acrylate adhesive products may be potential allergens, a reaction only to product 1 would suggest that 2-octyl cyanoacrylate is to blame. A reaction to products 2 and 3 but not product 1 would suggest 2-butyl cyanoacrylate as a sensitizer, while a reaction to products 1 and 2 but not product 3 would suggest that the dye is responsible.

Although plasticizers and dyes may be potential contact allergens, we postulated that the cyanoacrylate was the responsible sensitizer in our cases. Because the individual ingredients were not readily available for use testing, we devised a logical method to attempt to determine the specific component of the skin adhesive that was responsible for contact sensitization (Figure 4). Patients 3 and 4 in our series were tested using this method and were found to be sensitive to the product containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate but not the products containing 2-butyl cyanoacrylate.

Conclusion

Given the many advantages of cyanoacrylates, it is likely that their use in skin adhesive products will continue to increase. Our 4 patients may represent a rise in the incidence of ACD associated with increased use of skin adhesives, but it is important to look critically at this agent when patients present with postoperative pruritus in the absence of topical bacitracin or neomycin use and surgical dressing irritation. By using the technique we described, it is possible to identify the component responsible for the reaction; however, in the future, the exact mechanisms of sensitization and the specific components should be further elucidated by researchers working in conjunction with the manufacturers. Use testing on abraded skin and/or under occlusive dressings more closely mimics the initial exposure and may have a role in determining true allergy.

Cyanoacrylates are widely used in adhesive products, with applications ranging from household products to nail and beauty salons and even dentistry. A topical skin adhesive containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate was approved in 1998 for topical application for closure of skin edges of wounds from surgical incisions.¹ Usually cyanoacrylates are not strong sensitizers, and despite their extensive use, there have been relatively few reports of associated allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).^2-5 We report 4 cases of ACD to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate used in postsurgical wound closures as confirmed by patch tests.

Case Reports

Patient 1

A 33-year-old woman presented with an intensely pruritic peri-incisional rash on the lower back and right buttock of 1 week’s duration. The eruption started roughly 1 week following surgical implantation of a spinal cord stimulator for treatment of chronic back pain. Both incisions made during the implantation were closed with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate. The patient denied any prior exposure to topical skin adhesives or any history of contact dermatitis to nickel or other materials. The patient did not dress the wounds and did not apply topical agents to the area.

Physical examination revealed 6- to 8-cm linear surgical scars on the midline lumbar back and superior right buttock with surrounding excoriated erythematous papules coalescing into plaques consistent with acute eczematous dermatitis (Figure 1). Similar papules and plaques were scattered across the abdomen and chest. She was given triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% twice daily and hydroxyzine pamoate 25 mg 3 times daily for itching. The surgical wounds healed within 2 weeks of presentation with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation surrounding the scars.

Figure 1. Surgical scars with surrounding excoriated erythematous papules coalescing into plaques on the midline lumbar back (A) and superior right buttock (B).

Six weeks later she underwent patch testing to confirm the diagnosis. She was screened using the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard 65-allergen series and a miscellaneous tray including hardware obtained from the spinal cord stimulator device manufacturer. A use test to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate also was performed. At 96 hours, true positives included cinnamic aldehyde (1+), nickel (1+), bacitracin (1+), fragrance mix (2+), disperse blue dyes 106 and 124 (2+), and 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (3+)(1+=weak positive; 2+=strong positive; 3+=extreme reaction). There was no response to any components of the device. The pattern of dermatitis and positive patch-test results strongly supported the diagnosis of ACD to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate.

Patients 2, 3, and 4

Three patients—a 65-year-old woman, a 35-year-old woman, and a 44-year-old woman—presented to us with eczematous dermatitis at laparoscopic portal sites that were closed with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (Figures 2 and 3). They presented approximately 1 week following laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, laparoscopic left hepatectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. None of these  3 patients had been using any topical medications. All of them had a positive reaction (2+) to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate on use testing. Interestingly, use tests for 2 other cyanoacrylates containing 2-butyl cyanoacrylate were negative in 2 patients.

Figure 2. Acute eczematous plaques at wound closures.

Figure 3. Coalescing acute eczematous plaques focused at wound closures.

Although patient 1 reported no prior exposure to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate, these 3 additional patients reported prior exposure with no reaction. Other possible contact allergens associated with wound closure included iodine, topical antibiotics, and dressing tape.

Comment

Contact allergies to acrylates are not uncommon. In a series of 275 patients, Kanerva et al⁶ found that 17.5% of patients had an allergic reaction to at least 1 acrylate or methacrylate. In the same series, no allergic reactions to cyanoacrylates were noted.⁶ The role of methacrylates in the development of occupational ACD and irritant dermatitis has been well characterized among dentists, orthopedic surgeons, beauticians, and industrial workers who are commonly exposed to these agents.^7-12 Partially because of their longer carbon chains, cyanoacrylates have reduced toxicity and improved bonding strength as well as flexibility. Given their availability and the ease and speed of their use, skin adhesives have become widely used in the closure of surgical wounds.^13-16

Postoperative contact dermatitis is problematic, as patients are exposed to many potential allergens during surgery. In our clinical practice, the most common allergens causing ACD associated with surgery are iodine, topical antibiotics (ie, bacitracin, neomycin), tape adhesives, suture materials, and less commonly surgical hardware. Although they are rarely reported, contact allergies to skin adhesives such as cyanoacrylates are of particular importance because they may complicate surgical wounds, leading to dehiscence, infection, and scarring, among other complications. In our patients, there were no adverse outcomes in wound healing with the exception of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Under ideal conditions, 2-octyl cyanoacrylate generally is not a strong sensitizer; however, application to open wounds or thinner skin such as the eyelids may permit exposure of antigen-presenting cells to cyanoacrylate monomers, thereby initiating sensitization. Postsurgical occlusive dressings, which often are left in place for 7 to 14 days, also may contribute to sensitization. The role of the degradation of skin adhesive products in the development of contact dermatitis is unknown.

Management of ACD from skin adhesives should involve the immediate removal of any remaining adhesive. One manufacturer recommends removal of the product using acetone or petroleum jelly.¹ In our experience, rubbing the adhesive with 2×2-in gauze pads or using forceps have been successful methods for removal. The use of petroleum jelly prior to rubbing with gauze also can aid in removal of the adhesive. Warm water soaks and soap also may be helpful but are not expected to immediately loosen the bond. A mid-potency steroid ointment such as triamcinolone may be effective in treating dermatitis, though the use of higher-potency steroids such as clobetasol may be needed for severe reactions.^1,2

As members of the cyano group, cyanoacrylates are highly reactive molecules that polymerize and rapidly bind to the stratum corneum when they come in contact with traces of water. During polymerization, the individual constituents or monomer cyanoacrylate molecules are joined into a polymer chain, which should be trapped by keratinocytes and not reach immunomodulators^2,10; however, as postulated during the first report of contact dermatitis, an arid environment could delay polymerization and increase the risk of sensitization.² The first report was made in Las Vegas, Nevada,² and our cases presented in San Antonio, Texas.

There currently are 2 main cutaneous adhesives containing cyanoacrylate on the market, including 2-octyl cyanoacrylate and 2-butyl cyanoacrylate. These products are known by various trade names and differ primarily in the length of the carbon chain in the cyanoacrylate. A dye is added to allow better visibility of the glue during application, and a plasticizer increases viscosity and accelerates polymerization. The 2 most widely used products contain the same dye (D&C Violet No. 2) and similar but proprietary plasticizers.

Figure 4. When conducting use tests to determine if plasticizers or dyes in acrylate adhesive products may be potential allergens, a reaction only to product 1 would suggest that 2-octyl cyanoacrylate is to blame. A reaction to products 2 and 3 but not product 1 would suggest 2-butyl cyanoacrylate as a sensitizer, while a reaction to products 1 and 2 but not product 3 would suggest that the dye is responsible.

Although plasticizers and dyes may be potential contact allergens, we postulated that the cyanoacrylate was the responsible sensitizer in our cases. Because the individual ingredients were not readily available for use testing, we devised a logical method to attempt to determine the specific component of the skin adhesive that was responsible for contact sensitization (Figure 4). Patients 3 and 4 in our series were tested using this method and were found to be sensitive to the product containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate but not the products containing 2-butyl cyanoacrylate.

Conclusion

Given the many advantages of cyanoacrylates, it is likely that their use in skin adhesive products will continue to increase. Our 4 patients may represent a rise in the incidence of ACD associated with increased use of skin adhesives, but it is important to look critically at this agent when patients present with postoperative pruritus in the absence of topical bacitracin or neomycin use and surgical dressing irritation. By using the technique we described, it is possible to identify the component responsible for the reaction; however, in the future, the exact mechanisms of sensitization and the specific components should be further elucidated by researchers working in conjunction with the manufacturers. Use testing on abraded skin and/or under occlusive dressings more closely mimics the initial exposure and may have a role in determining true allergy.

Case Report

A 65-year-old man presented to the dermatology department for treatment of a scaly rash on the face and scalp. A diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis was made, and he was prescribed ketoconazole cream 2% and shampoo 2%. Two days later, the patient presented to the emergency department for facial swelling and pruritus, which began 1 day after he began using the ketoconazole cream and shampoo. He reported itching and burning on the face that began within several hours of application followed by progressive facial edema. The patient denied shortness of breath or swelling of the tongue. Physical examination revealed mild facial induration with erythematous plaques on the bilateral cheeks, forehead, and eyelids. The patient was instructed to stop using the ketoconazole cream and shampoo. Within several days of discontinuing use of the ketoconazole products, the dermatitis resolved following treatment with oral diphenhydramine and topical desonide.

Review of the patient’s medical record revealed several likely relevant incidences of undiagnosed recurrent dermatitis. Approximately 2 years earlier, the patient had called his primary care provider to report pain, burning, redness, and itching in the right buttock area following use of ketoconazole cream that the physician had prescribed. Allergic contact dermatitis also had been documented in the patient’s dermatology problem list approximately 1.5 years prior to the current presentation, though a likely causative agent was not listed. Approximately 3 months prior to the current presentation, the patient presented with lower leg rash and edema with documentation of possible allergic reaction to ketoconazole cream.

The patient was patch tested several weeks after discontinuation of the ketoconazole products using the 2012 North American Contact Dermatitis Group series (70 allergens), a supplemental series (36 allergens), an antifungal series (10 allergens), and personal products including ketoconazole cream and shampoo (diluted 1:100). Clinically relevant reactions at 72 hours included an extreme reaction (+++) to the patient’s personal ketoconazole cream 2% (E. Fougera & Co)(Figure 1), and strong reactions (++) to purified ketoconazole 5% in petrolatum and ketoconazole cream 2% (E. Fougera & Co) in an antifungal series (Figure 2). A doubtful reaction to methyl methacrylate was not deemed clinically relevant. No reactions were noted to terbinafine cream 1%, clotrimazole cream 1%, nystatin cream, nystatin ointment, econazole nitrate cream 1%, miconazole nitrate cream 2%, tolnaftate cream 1%, or purified clotrimazole 1% in petrolatum.

Figure 1. Reading at 72 hours of patient’s personal products (ketoconazole cream 2% and ketoconazole shampoo 2%).

Figure 2. Reading at 72 hours of an antifungal series (ketoconazole cream 2% and purified ketocona-zole 5% in petrolatum).

Comment

Ketoconazole is a widely used antifungal but rarely is reported as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Allergies to inactive ingredients, especially vehicles and preservatives, are more common than allergies to ketoconazole itself. In our patient, allergy to inactive ingredients was ruled out by negative reactions to individual constituents and/or negative reactions to other products containing those ingredients. A literature review via Ovid using the search terms ketoconazole, allergic contact dermatitis, and allergy found 4 reports involving 9 documented patients with type IV hypersensitivity to ketoconazole,^1-4 and 1 report of 2 patients who developed anaphylaxis from oral ketoconazole.¹ Of the 9 dermatitis cases, 3 patients had positive patch tests to only ketoconazole with no reactions to other imidazoles.^2,3 Monoallergy to clotrimazole also has been reported.⁵ A study by Dooms-Goossens et al⁴ showed that ketoconazole ranked seventh of 11 imidazole derivatives in its frequency to cause allergic contact dermatitis and did not demonstrate statistically significant cross-reactivity with other imidazoles; cross-reactivity usually occurred with miconazole and sulconazole.

Conclusion

This case of contact dermatitis to ketoconazole demonstrates the importance of patch testing with personal products as well as the unpredictability of cross-reactions within the imidazole class of antifungals.

Acknowledgment

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Case Report

A 65-year-old man presented to the dermatology department for treatment of a scaly rash on the face and scalp. A diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis was made, and he was prescribed ketoconazole cream 2% and shampoo 2%. Two days later, the patient presented to the emergency department for facial swelling and pruritus, which began 1 day after he began using the ketoconazole cream and shampoo. He reported itching and burning on the face that began within several hours of application followed by progressive facial edema. The patient denied shortness of breath or swelling of the tongue. Physical examination revealed mild facial induration with erythematous plaques on the bilateral cheeks, forehead, and eyelids. The patient was instructed to stop using the ketoconazole cream and shampoo. Within several days of discontinuing use of the ketoconazole products, the dermatitis resolved following treatment with oral diphenhydramine and topical desonide.

Review of the patient’s medical record revealed several likely relevant incidences of undiagnosed recurrent dermatitis. Approximately 2 years earlier, the patient had called his primary care provider to report pain, burning, redness, and itching in the right buttock area following use of ketoconazole cream that the physician had prescribed. Allergic contact dermatitis also had been documented in the patient’s dermatology problem list approximately 1.5 years prior to the current presentation, though a likely causative agent was not listed. Approximately 3 months prior to the current presentation, the patient presented with lower leg rash and edema with documentation of possible allergic reaction to ketoconazole cream.

The patient was patch tested several weeks after discontinuation of the ketoconazole products using the 2012 North American Contact Dermatitis Group series (70 allergens), a supplemental series (36 allergens), an antifungal series (10 allergens), and personal products including ketoconazole cream and shampoo (diluted 1:100). Clinically relevant reactions at 72 hours included an extreme reaction (+++) to the patient’s personal ketoconazole cream 2% (E. Fougera & Co)(Figure 1), and strong reactions (++) to purified ketoconazole 5% in petrolatum and ketoconazole cream 2% (E. Fougera & Co) in an antifungal series (Figure 2). A doubtful reaction to methyl methacrylate was not deemed clinically relevant. No reactions were noted to terbinafine cream 1%, clotrimazole cream 1%, nystatin cream, nystatin ointment, econazole nitrate cream 1%, miconazole nitrate cream 2%, tolnaftate cream 1%, or purified clotrimazole 1% in petrolatum.

Figure 1. Reading at 72 hours of patient’s personal products (ketoconazole cream 2% and ketoconazole shampoo 2%).

Figure 2. Reading at 72 hours of an antifungal series (ketoconazole cream 2% and purified ketocona-zole 5% in petrolatum).

Comment

Ketoconazole is a widely used antifungal but rarely is reported as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Allergies to inactive ingredients, especially vehicles and preservatives, are more common than allergies to ketoconazole itself. In our patient, allergy to inactive ingredients was ruled out by negative reactions to individual constituents and/or negative reactions to other products containing those ingredients. A literature review via Ovid using the search terms ketoconazole, allergic contact dermatitis, and allergy found 4 reports involving 9 documented patients with type IV hypersensitivity to ketoconazole,^1-4 and 1 report of 2 patients who developed anaphylaxis from oral ketoconazole.¹ Of the 9 dermatitis cases, 3 patients had positive patch tests to only ketoconazole with no reactions to other imidazoles.^2,3 Monoallergy to clotrimazole also has been reported.⁵ A study by Dooms-Goossens et al⁴ showed that ketoconazole ranked seventh of 11 imidazole derivatives in its frequency to cause allergic contact dermatitis and did not demonstrate statistically significant cross-reactivity with other imidazoles; cross-reactivity usually occurred with miconazole and sulconazole.

Conclusion

This case of contact dermatitis to ketoconazole demonstrates the importance of patch testing with personal products as well as the unpredictability of cross-reactions within the imidazole class of antifungals.

Acknowledgment

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Case Report

A 65-year-old man presented to the dermatology department for treatment of a scaly rash on the face and scalp. A diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis was made, and he was prescribed ketoconazole cream 2% and shampoo 2%. Two days later, the patient presented to the emergency department for facial swelling and pruritus, which began 1 day after he began using the ketoconazole cream and shampoo. He reported itching and burning on the face that began within several hours of application followed by progressive facial edema. The patient denied shortness of breath or swelling of the tongue. Physical examination revealed mild facial induration with erythematous plaques on the bilateral cheeks, forehead, and eyelids. The patient was instructed to stop using the ketoconazole cream and shampoo. Within several days of discontinuing use of the ketoconazole products, the dermatitis resolved following treatment with oral diphenhydramine and topical desonide.

Review of the patient’s medical record revealed several likely relevant incidences of undiagnosed recurrent dermatitis. Approximately 2 years earlier, the patient had called his primary care provider to report pain, burning, redness, and itching in the right buttock area following use of ketoconazole cream that the physician had prescribed. Allergic contact dermatitis also had been documented in the patient’s dermatology problem list approximately 1.5 years prior to the current presentation, though a likely causative agent was not listed. Approximately 3 months prior to the current presentation, the patient presented with lower leg rash and edema with documentation of possible allergic reaction to ketoconazole cream.

The patient was patch tested several weeks after discontinuation of the ketoconazole products using the 2012 North American Contact Dermatitis Group series (70 allergens), a supplemental series (36 allergens), an antifungal series (10 allergens), and personal products including ketoconazole cream and shampoo (diluted 1:100). Clinically relevant reactions at 72 hours included an extreme reaction (+++) to the patient’s personal ketoconazole cream 2% (E. Fougera & Co)(Figure 1), and strong reactions (++) to purified ketoconazole 5% in petrolatum and ketoconazole cream 2% (E. Fougera & Co) in an antifungal series (Figure 2). A doubtful reaction to methyl methacrylate was not deemed clinically relevant. No reactions were noted to terbinafine cream 1%, clotrimazole cream 1%, nystatin cream, nystatin ointment, econazole nitrate cream 1%, miconazole nitrate cream 2%, tolnaftate cream 1%, or purified clotrimazole 1% in petrolatum.

Figure 1. Reading at 72 hours of patient’s personal products (ketoconazole cream 2% and ketoconazole shampoo 2%).

Figure 2. Reading at 72 hours of an antifungal series (ketoconazole cream 2% and purified ketocona-zole 5% in petrolatum).

Comment

Ketoconazole is a widely used antifungal but rarely is reported as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Allergies to inactive ingredients, especially vehicles and preservatives, are more common than allergies to ketoconazole itself. In our patient, allergy to inactive ingredients was ruled out by negative reactions to individual constituents and/or negative reactions to other products containing those ingredients. A literature review via Ovid using the search terms ketoconazole, allergic contact dermatitis, and allergy found 4 reports involving 9 documented patients with type IV hypersensitivity to ketoconazole,^1-4 and 1 report of 2 patients who developed anaphylaxis from oral ketoconazole.¹ Of the 9 dermatitis cases, 3 patients had positive patch tests to only ketoconazole with no reactions to other imidazoles.^2,3 Monoallergy to clotrimazole also has been reported.⁵ A study by Dooms-Goossens et al⁴ showed that ketoconazole ranked seventh of 11 imidazole derivatives in its frequency to cause allergic contact dermatitis and did not demonstrate statistically significant cross-reactivity with other imidazoles; cross-reactivity usually occurred with miconazole and sulconazole.

Conclusion

This case of contact dermatitis to ketoconazole demonstrates the importance of patch testing with personal products as well as the unpredictability of cross-reactions within the imidazole class of antifungals.

Acknowledgment

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.