Advertisement

Mycopathologia

, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 11–17 | Cite as

Superficial mycoses observed at the Department of Dermatology of the University of Pavia

A 13-year survey
  • A. Di Silverio
  • M. Mosca
  • M. Gatti
  • G. Brandozzi
Article

Abstract

Over a period of 13 years, 4100 specimens were cultured for fungi. Pityriasis versicolor (Malassezia furfur) was demonstrated in 17.6%, dermatophytosis in 34.6% and candidiasis in 10.8%. The most frequently isolated strains were M. canis (31.5%), T. rubrum (26.3%), E. floccosum (19.7%), T. mentagrophytes (19.3%) for the dermatophytes and C. albicans (88.9%). Those rarely seen were: M. gypseum, T. violaceum, M. audouini, T. schoenleinii. We observed the absolutely complementary results of the microscopic examinations and the cultures of the specimens.

Key words

superficial mycoses dermatophytosis candidiasis 

Abbreviations

D

Direct microscopic observation of the specimen

C

Culture of the specimen

*

Position of the table

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alteras I, Cafri B, Feuerman EJ. The high incidence of tinea pedis and unguium in patients with Kaposi's sarcoma. Mycopathologia 1981; 74:177–79.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Binazzi M, Papini M, Simonetti S. Skin mycoses geographic distribution and present-day pathomorphosis. Int J Dermat 1983; 22:92–97.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borelli D. Medios caseros para micologia. Arch Venez Med Trop y Parass 1962; 4:301–10.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caretta G, Dal Frate F, Picco AM, Mangiarotti AM. Superficial mycoses in Italy. Mycopathologia 1981; 76:27–32.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen MM. Simple procedure for staining tinea versicolor (M. furfur) with fountain pen ink. J Inv Dermat 1954; 22:9–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Assis L, De Aguiar EJ, Da Costa Nery JA, De Almeida A, Guimares AY, Azulay RD. Dados e coméntarios sobre 4060 exames micologicos realízados em ascamas de pele, pélos e unhas. Med Cut ILA 1985; 13:209–18.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Di Silverio A, Mosca M, Gatti M. Remarks on dermatomycoses observed at the Dermatology Department of Pavia: infection caused by M. canis. Giorn It Derm Vener 1987; 122:101–4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emtestam L, Kaaman T. The changing clinical picture of M. canis infections in Sweden. Acta Dermat Vener 1982; 62:539–41.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lasagni A, Alessi E. Statistical considerations on mycological infections observed from 1964 to 1968 in Dermatology Department of Milano. Giorn It Derm Vener 1968; 109:331–35.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mantovani A. Dermatophytozoonosis transmitted by pet. boll AIVPA 1973; 12:55–64.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mantovani A, Ajello L, Nazzaro P. Epidemiology of mycoses. Giorn It Mal Inf Parass 1975; 27:685–91.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papini M, Simonettis. Etiology and pathomorphosis of cutaneous mycoses in survey of the Dermatology Department of Perugia. Ann It Dermat Clin Sper 1982; 36:239–47.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinski JT, Flouras K. A survey of dermatophytes isolated from human patients in the United States from 1979 to 1981 with chronological listing of worldwide incidence of five dermatophytes often isolated in the United States. Mycopathologia 1984; 85:97–120.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torres-Rodriguez JM, Balaguar-Meler J, Ventin-Hernandez M, Martin-Casabona N. Multicenter study of dermatophyte distribution in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Mycopathologia 1986; 93:95–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Di Silverio
    • 1
  • M. Mosca
    • 1
  • M. Gatti
    • 1
  • G. Brandozzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dermatology DepartmentUniversity of Pavia, IRCCS, Policlinico S. MatteoPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations