Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contact Dermatitis in the Hospitalized Patient

  • Hospital- based Dermatology (D Kroshinsky, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Dermatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this study is to review the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management strategies for irritant and allergic contact dermatitis (CD) in hospitalized patients.

Recent Findings

Contact dermatitis accounts for 10% of inpatient dermatology consult cases. This high frequency of CD arises because hospitalized patients are exposed to numerous irritants and common allergens as part of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Common triggers include antibiotics, antiseptics, anesthetics, latex, and rubber additives. Hypersensitivity to metals and other materials in cardiac and orthopedic implants has also been reported, and an association between CD and implant failure has been proposed.

Summary

Recognition of CD and identification of the causative agent require a detailed clinical and exposure history, physical exam, and a high degree of clinical suspicion. Timely diagnosis and management are crucial, as they enable symptom relief and improvement in quality of life, and may also positively impact overall health outcomes by reducing associated systemic morbidity.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Galimberti F, et al. Dermatology consultations significantly contribute quality to care of hospitalized patients: a prospective study of dermatology inpatient consults at a tertiary care center. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55(10):e547–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Storan ER, et al. Pediatric hospital dermatology: experience with inpatient and consult services at the Mayo Clinic. Pediatr Dermatol. 2013;30(4):433–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Divkovic M, et al. Hapten-protein binding: from theory to practical application in the in vitro prediction of skin sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(4):189–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mowad CM, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: patient diagnosis and evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(6):1029–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Trautmann A, et al. The differential fate of cadherins during T-cell-induced keratinocyte apoptosis leads to spongiosis in eczematous dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2001;117(4):927–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Widman TJ, Oostman H, Storrs FJ. Allergic contact dermatitis from medical adhesive bandages in patients who report having a reaction to medical bandages. Dermatitis. 2008;19(1):32–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Downs AM, Sansom JE. Colophony allergy: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(6):305–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hivnor CM, Hudkins ML. Allergic contact dermatitis after postsurgical repair with 2-octylcyanoacrylate. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(6):814–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Connolly M, Buckley DA. Contact dermatitis from propylene glycol in ECG electrodes, complicated by medicament allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(1):42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ozkaya E, Kavlak Bozkurt P. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by self-adhesive electrocardiography electrodes: a rare case with concomitant roles of nickel and acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(2):121–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marks Jr JG, Rainey MA. Cutaneous reactions to surgical preparations and dressings. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10(1):1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Green CM, Holden CR, Gawkrodger DJ. Contact allergy to topical medicaments becomes more common with advancing age: an age-stratified study. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(4):229–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Menezes de Padua CA, et al. Contact allergy to neomycin sulfate: results of a multifactorial analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(10):725–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gehrig KA, Warshaw EM. Allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics: epidemiology, responsible allergens, and management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58(1):1–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carter Jr ES, Cope CB. Anaphylaxis due to topical penicillin. J Allergy. 1954;25(3):270–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lerman SJ. Letter: why not use topical penicillin? Pediatrics. 1976;58(2):302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andre MC, et al. Systemic contact allergy to penicillin after prick and intradermal tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;106(2):174–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, Fisher AA. Topical antimicrobials. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Trookman NS, Rizer RL, Weber T. Irritation and allergy patch test analysis of topical treatments commonly used in wound care: evaluation on normal and compromised skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(3 Suppl):S16–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pratt MD, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis. 2004;15(4):176–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goh CL. Contact sensitivity to topical antimicrobials. (II). Sensitizing potentials of some topical antimicrobials. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21(3):166–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guin JD, Phillips D. Erythroderma from systemic contact dermatitis: a complication of systemic gentamicin in a patient with contact allergy to neomycin. Cutis. 1989;43(6):564–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Marks Jr JG, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996-1998. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136(2):272–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Marks Jr JG, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat. 2003;14(2):59–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gette MT, Marks Jr JG, Maloney ME. Frequency of postoperative allergic contact dermatitis to topical antibiotics. Arch Dermatol. 1992;128(3):365–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Alfalah M, et al. Contact allergy to polymyxin B among patients referred for patch testing. Dermatitis. 2016;27(3):119–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zaki I, Shall L, Dalziel KL. Bacitracin: a significant sensitizer in leg ulcer patients? Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31(2):92–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Draelos ZD, Rizer RL, Trookman NS. A comparison of postprocedural wound care treatments: do antibiotic-based ointments improve outcomes? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(3 Suppl):S23–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. • Lachapelle JM. A comparison of the irritant and allergenic properties of antiseptics. Eur J Dermatol. 2014;24(1):3–9. This study provides a review of the irritant and allergenic properties of current and frequently used antiseptic therapies, including a summary of their mechanisms of action and the most current safety data available to date.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14(4):221–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheng CE, Kroshinsky D. Iatrogenic skin injury in hospitalized patients. Clin Dermatol. 2011;29(6):622–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Iijima S, Kuramochi M. Investigation of irritant skin reaction by 10% povidone-iodine solution after surgery. Dermatology. 2002;204(Suppl 1):103–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liippo J, Kousa P, Lammintausta K. The relevance of chlorhexidine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64(4):229–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Perrenoud D, et al. Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Swiss Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30(5):276–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mailhol C, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical treatment in atopic dermatitis: a study in 641 children. Allergy. 2009;64(5):801–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weitz NA, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated central access catheter dressings as a cause of erosive contact dermatitis: a report of 7 cases. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(2):195–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kautz O, et al. Severe anaphylaxis to the antiseptic polyhexanide. Allergy. 2010;65(8):1068–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Garcia AA, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to silver in a patient treated with silver sulphadiazine after a burn. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(2):365–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McKenna SR, et al. Serious silver sulphadiazine and mafenide acetate dermatitis. Burns. 1995;21(4):310–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fraser-Moodie A. Sensitivity to silver in a patient treated with silver sulphadiazine (Flamazine). Burns. 1992;18(1):74–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. To D, Kossintseva I, de Gannes G. Lidocaine contact allergy is becoming more prevalent. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(12):1367–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kluger N, et al. Acute bullous irritant contact dermatitis caused by EMLA(R) cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65(3):181–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yuen WY, et al. Bullous allergic contact dermatitis to lidocaine. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(5):300–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Melamed J, Beaucher WN. Delayed-type hypersensitivity (type IV) reactions in dental anesthesia. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2007;28(4):477–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Brinca A, Cabral R, Goncalo M. Contact allergy to local anaesthetics—value of patch testing with a caine mix in the baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(3):156–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Warshaw EM, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2013;24(2):50–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Amado A, Sood A, Taylor JS. Contact allergy to lidocaine: a report of sixteen cases. Dermatitis. 2007;18(4):215–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fisher AA. Reactions to injectable local anesthetics. Part IV: reactions to sulfites in local anesthetics. Cutis. 1989;44(4):283–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dooms-Goossens A, et al. Local anesthetic intolerance due to metabisulfite. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20(2):124–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ivy RS. Anesthetics and methylparaben. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983;106(3):302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Raap U, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to acid blue 158 in suture material. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(3):192–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Della Torre F, Della Torre E, Di Berardino F. Side effects from polydioxanone. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;37(2):47–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dagregorio G, Guillet G. Allergic suture material contact dermatitis induced by ethylene oxide. Allergy. 2004;59(11):1239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Klein CE, Gall H. Type IV allergy to amide-type local anesthetics. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25(1):45–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Curley RK, Macfarlane AW, King CM. Contact sensitivity to the amide anesthetics lidocaine, prilocaine, and mepivacaine. Case report and review of the literature. Arch Dermatol. 1986;122(8):924–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Jussi L, Lammintausta K. Sources of sensitization, cross-reactions, and occupational sensitization to topical anaesthetics among general dermatology patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(3):150–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ramirez P, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from antihemorrhoidal ointments: concomitant sensitization to both amide and ester local anesthetics. Dermatitis. 2010;21(3):176–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. • Burkhart C, Schloemer J, Zirwas M. Differentiation of latex allergy from irritant contact dermatitis. Cutis. 2015;96(6):369-71–401. This study provides an indepth discussion of the three primary mechanisms by which individuals develop adverse reactions to latex-containing products, including irritant reactions as well as immediate and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Floyd PT. Latex allergy update. J Perianesth Nurs. 2000;15(1):26–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Higgins CL, et al. Occupational skin disease among Australian healthcare workers: a retrospective analysis from an occupational dermatology clinic, 1993-2014. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(4):213–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wu M, McIntosh J, Liu J. Current prevalence rate of latex allergy: why it remains a problem? J Occup Health. 2016;58(2):138–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sussman GL, Beezhold DH. Allergy to latex rubber. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122(1):43–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hepner DL, Castells MC. Anaphylaxis during the perioperative period. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(5):1381–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kwittken PL, et al. Latex hypersensitivity in children: clinical presentation and detection of latex-specific immunoglobulin E. Pediatrics. 1995;95(5):693–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Nettis E, et al. Type I allergy to natural rubber latex and type IV allergy to rubber chemicals in health care workers with glove-related skin symptoms. Clin Exp Allergy. 2002;32(3):441–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Warburton KL, et al. ESSCA results with the baseline series, 2009-2012: rubber allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(5):305–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Mitchell KA, et al. Demographic, clinical, and quality of life variables related to embarrassment in veterans living with an intestinal stoma. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2007;34(5):524–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lyon CC, et al. Peristomal dermatoses: a novel indication for topical steroid lotions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;43(4):679–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Burch J, Sica J. Common peristomal skin problems and potential treatment options. Br J Nurs. 2008;17(17):S4–6. S8 passim

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hellman J, Lago CP. Dermatologic complications in colostomy and ileostomy patients. Int J Dermatol. 1990;29(2):129–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lyon CC, et al. The spectrum of skin disorders in abdominal stoma patients. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143(6):1248–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Rolstad BS, Erwin-Toth PL. Peristomal skin complications: prevention and management. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2004;50(9):68–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mann RJ, Stewart E, Peachey RD. Sensitivity to urostomy pouch plastic. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9(1):80–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Fregert S, Meding B, Trulsson L. Demonstration of epoxy resin in stoma pouch plastic. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10(2):106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Beck MH, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to epoxy resin in ostomy bags. Br J Surg. 1985;72(3):202–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Camarasa JM, Alomar A. Contact dermatitis from a Karaya seal ring. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6(2):139–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Scalf LA, Fowler Jr JF. Peristomal allergic contact dermatitis due to Gantrez in Stomahesive paste. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42(2 Pt 2):355–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Martin JA, Hughes TM, Stone NM. Peristomal allergic contact dermatitis—case report and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(5):273–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Davids MG, Hodgson GA, Evans E. Contact dermatitis from an ostomy deodorant. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4(1):11–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lazarov A, Trattner A. Allergic contact dermatitis from the adhesive remover wipe of stoma bags. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39(1):48–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Fernandez-Redondo V, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from local anaesthetic on peristomal skin. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45(6):358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Nybaek H, et al. Skin problems in ostomy patients: a case-control study of risk factors. Acta Derm Venereol. 2009;89(1):64–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Smith AJ, Lyon CC, Hart CA. Multidisciplinary care of skin problems in stoma patients. Br J Nurs. 2002;11(5):324–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. • Aquino M, Mucci T. Systemic contact dermatitis and allergy to biomedical devices. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2013;13(5):518–27. This review provides an extensive discussion of the many causes of systemic contact dermatitis with an indepth focus on metal allergies including a summary of the existing literature discussing reactions to implanted cardiac, orthopedic, gynecologic, and dental devices.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Dorr LD, et al. Histologic, biochemical, and ion analysis of tissue and fluids retrieved during total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:82–95.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Jacobs JJ, et al. Metal release in patients who have had a primary total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, controlled, longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(10):1447–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Honari G, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions associated with endovascular devices. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(1):7–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Iijima R, et al. The impact of metallic allergy on stent implantation: metal allergy and recurrence of in-stent restenosis. Int J Cardiol. 2005;104(3):319–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Koster R, et al. Nickel and molybdenum contact allergies in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. Lancet. 2000;356(9245):1895–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Norgaz T, et al. Is there a link between nickel allergy and coronary stent restenosis? Tohoku J Exp Med. 2005;206(3):243–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Saito T, et al. Metal allergic reaction in chronic refractory in-stent restenosis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2009;10(1):17–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Svedman C, et al. Contact allergy to gold in patients with gold-plated intracoronary stents. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(4):192–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Ekqvist S, et al. High frequency of contact allergy to gold in patients with endovascular coronary stents. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(4):730–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Ishii K, et al. Pacemaker contact dermatitis: the effective use of a polytetrafluoroethylene sheet. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29(11):1299–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Oprea ML, et al. Allergy to pacemaker silicone compounds: recognition and surgical management. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87(4):1275–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Raque C, Goldschmidt H. Dermatitis associated with an implanted cardiac pacemaker. Arch Dermatol. 1970;102(6):646–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Williams SN, Wolford ML, Bercovitz A. Hospitalization for total knee replacement among inpatients aged 45 and over: United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2000-2010;2015(210):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Wolford ML, Palso K, Bercovitz A. Hospitalization for total hip replacement among inpatients aged 45 and over: United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2000-2010;2015(186):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kurtz S, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Thyssen JP, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions from metallic implants: a future challenge that needs to be addressed. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(2):235–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Elves MW, et al. Incidence of metal sensitivity in patients with total joint replacements. Br Med J. 1975;4(5993):376–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Tilsley DA, Rotstein H. Sensitivity caused by internal exposure to nickel, chrome and cobalt. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6(3):175–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Stroup DF, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Granchi D, et al. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;77(2):257–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Bahmer FA, Lesch H. Density of Langerhans’ cells in ATPase stained epidermal sheet preparations from stasis dermatitis skin of the lower leg. Acta Derm Venereol. 1987;67(4):301–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Prakash AV, Davis MD. Contact dermatitis in older adults: a review of the literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11(6):373–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Scott HJ, Coleridge Smith PD, Scurr JH. Histological study of white blood cells and their association with lipodermatosclerosis and venous ulceration. Br J Surg. 1991;78(2):210–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Barbaud A, et al. 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. 2009;60(5):279–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Jankicevic J, et al. Contact sensitivity in patients with venous leg ulcers in Serbia: comparison with contact dermatitis patients and relationship to ulcer duration. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58(1):32–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Machet L, et al. 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-analysis of 1975-2003 data. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150(5):929–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Lim KS, et al. Contact sensitization in patients with chronic venous leg ulcers in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56(2):94–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Tavadia S, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in venous leg ulcer patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(5):261–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Lindemayr H, Drobil M. Eczema of the lower leg and contact allergy. Hautarzt. 1985;36(4):227–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Wilkinson SM, English JS. Hydrocortisone sensitivity: clinical features of fifty-nine cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;27(5 Pt 1):683–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Smart V, et al. Contact allergens in persons with leg ulcers: a Canadian study in contact sensitization. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2008;7(3):120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Sasseville D, Tennstedt D, Lachapelle JM. Allergic contact dermatitis from hydrocolloid dressings. Am J Contact Dermat. 1997;8(4):236–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Siegel DM. Contact sensitivity and recalcitrant wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2000;46(1A Suppl):65S–74S. quiz 75S-76S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Shai A, Halevy S. Direct triggers for ulceration in patients with venous insufficiency. Int J Dermatol. 2005;44(12):1006–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Smith HR, Basketter DA, McFadden JP. Irritant dermatitis, irritancy and its role in allergic contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2002;27(2):138–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Ilka Arun Netravali

  2. Cutaneous Biology Research Center, Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 149 Thirteenth Street, Charlestown, Boston, MA, 02129, USA

    Sarina B. Elmariah

Authors
  1. Ilka Arun Netravali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarina B. Elmariah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarina B. Elmariah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ilka Arun Netravali and Sarina B. Elmariah declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Hospital- based Dermatology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Netravali, I.A., Elmariah, S.B. Contact Dermatitis in the Hospitalized Patient. Curr Derm Rep 6, 7–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-017-0165-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-017-0165-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation