Amaç: Mesleki kontakt dermatitli hastaların yama testi sonuçlarını incelemek ve değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2015-2016 yılları arasında İstanbul Meslek Hastalıkları Hastanesine primer olarak deri şikâyetiyle başvuran ve mesleki kontakt dermatit (MKD) tanısı alan 51 hastanın yama testi sonuçları geriye dönük olarak dosyalarından elde edildi. Yama testi olarak 36 alerjenden oluşan T.R.U.E. (Thin layer-Rapid-Use-Epicutaneus) test kullanıldı. Test okumaları 48 ve 72. Saatlerde Uluslararası Kontakt Dermatit Araştırma Grubu'nun belirlediği kriterlere göre değerlendirilip kaydedildi. İstatistiksel analizlerde Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 programı kullanıldı. Gruplar arasındaki kategorik veriler 'Pearson ChiSquare' testi ile karşılaştırıldı. İstatistiksel anlamlılık sınırı p<0,05 kabul edildi. Bulgular: Hastalarımızın 42 (%82,4)'si erkek, 9 (%17,6)'u kadındı. Toplam 51 hastanın 22 (%43,1)'sinde yama testinde en az bir alerjene pozitif reaksiyon bulunurken, 29 (%56,9) hastada ise test negatif olarak saptandı. Yama testinde en sık saptanan alerjenler sırasıyla potasyum dikromat (%31,8), nikel sülfat (%27,2) ve karbamiks (%18,1) idi. En sık metal (%27,5), tekstil (%15,7), otomotiv (%9,8), matbaa (%9,8) ve temizlik (%7,8) sektörü çalışanı mevcuttu. Sonuç: Mesleki kontakt dermatitli hastalarda önemli oranda yama testi pozitifliği olduğunu ve mesleğe bağlı olarak çeşitli alerjenlerin var olduğunu saptadık. Bunun için ilgili hekim, işçi ve toplumun bilinçlendirilmesi amaçlı girişimlerin yapılmasının önemli olduğunu düşünüyoruz. Yama testi irritan ve alerjik kontakt dermatitin ayrımında önemlidir, fakat yalancı pozitif veya negatif reaksiyonlar sebebiyle MKD tanısı için klinik bulguların değerlendirilmesiyle beraber hastaların takibinin yapılması gereklidir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mesleki dermatitler; yama testi; alerjik kontakt dermatit
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine and evaluate the patch test results of patients with occupational contact dermatitis. Matherial and Methods: Between 2015-2016, the patch test results of 51 patients admitted to the Istanbul Occupational Diseases Hospital with a primary skin complaint and diagnosed as occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) were obtained retrospectively from their files. As a patch test, T.R.U.E. (Thin layer-Rapid-Use-Epicutaneus) test was used, readings were performed according to the criteria determined by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) at 48th and 72th hours. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 program was used for statistical analysis. Categorical data between groups were compared with Pearson ChiSquare test. The statistical significance limit was set at p<0.05. Results: 42 (82.4%) of our patients were male and 9 (17.6%) were female. Of the 51 patients, 22 (43.1%) had a positive reaction to at least one allergen in the patch test, whereas the test was negative in 29 (56.9%) patients. The most common allergens found in patch test were potassium dichromate (31.8%), nickel sulfate (27.2%) and carbamix (18.1%). Most of the employees were metal (27.5%), textile (15.7%), automotive (9.8%), printing (9.8%) and cleaning (7.8%). Conclusion: We found that there was a significant patch test positivity in patients with OCD depending on the profession. We believe that it is important to make initiatives to raise awareness of the physicians, workers and the community. The patch test is important in the differentiation of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, but due to false positive or negative reactions, follow-up of the patients with clinical signs of diagnosis of OCD is necessary.
Keywords: Occupational dermatitis; patch test; allergic contact dermatitis
- Sasseville D. Occupational contact dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2008;4(2):59-65. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Australia, Australian Safety and Compensation Council; 2016.
- Luckhaupt SE, Dahlhamer JM, Ward BW, Sussell AL, Sweeney MH, Sestito JP, et al. Prevalence of dermatitis in the working 402 population, United States, 2010 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56(6):625-34. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rietschel RL, Mathias CG, Fowler JF Jr, Pratt M, Taylor JS, Sherertz EF, et al. Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat. 2002;13(4):170-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wall LM, Gebauer KA. Occupational skin disease in Western Australia. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;24(2):101-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Su O, Onsun N, Ozkaya DB, Hande A. [Patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis/mucositis]. Turkish Archives of Dermatology and Venereology. 2008;42:13-7.
- Aytekin A, To?ral AK, Yylmaz OH, Buyuksekerci M. [Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with occupational contact dermatitis: a 3-year single center experience]. Turkdem. 2015;49:257-62. [Crossref]
- Diepgen TL. Occupational skin diseases. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2012;10(5):297-313. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zorba E, Karpouzis A, Zorbas A, Bazas T, Zorbas S, Alexopoulos E, et al. Occupational dermatoses by type of work in Greece. Saf Health Work. 2013;4(3):142-8. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Seeberg G. [Skin reaction to the ingredients in soaps and detergents causing primary skin irritation]. Sven Lakartidn. 1955;52(50):3081-93.
- Lantinga H, Nater JP, Coenraads PJ. Prevalence, incidence and course of eczema on the hand and forearm in a sample of the general population. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10(3):135-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gurgey E. Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(6):333-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wetter DA, Davis MD, Yiannias JA, Cheng JF, Connolly SM, el-Azhary RA, et al. Patch test results from the Mayo Clinic contact dermatitis group, 1998-2000. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(3):416-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ye?ilova Y, Ucmak D, Sula B. Evaluation of patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis. Dicle Medical Journal. 2011;38(4):471-6. [Crossref]
- Mangelsdorf HC, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF. Patch testing in an aged population without dermatitis: high prevalence of patch test positivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1996;7(3):155-7. [Crossref]
- Akasya-Hillenbrand E, Ozkaya-Bayazit E. Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46(1):17-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cohen DE, Brancaccio R, Andersen D, Belsito DV. Utility of a standard allegen series alone in the evoluation of allergic contact dermatitis: a retrospective study of 732 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;36(6 Pt 1):914-8. [Crossref]
- Gunduz O, Aytekin A, Tutkun E, Yylmaz H. Comparison of European standard patch test results of 330 patients from an occupational diseases hospital. Dermatol Res Pract. 2016;2016:9421878. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Fischer T, Kreilgard B, Maibach HI. The true value of the TRUE test for allergic contact dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2001;1(4):316-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Lazarov A. European Standard Series patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel during the 7-year period from 1998 to 2004. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(2):73-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sadagopan K, Kalappan D, Sivaprakasam N, Vinoth. Patch test results from an occupational and contact dermatitis clinic in a tertiary care hospital of southern India: a retrospective study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(8):11-4. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Ucar-Tavly Y, Mevlito?lu Y, ?ahin TK, Daye M. Five year patch test results. General Medicine Journal. 2012;2:16-20.
- Plombom GY, Oliveira MS, Tabushi FL, Kassem AJ, Purim KS, Nisihara RM. Epidemiological analysis of occupational dermatitis notified in Brazil in the period 2007 to 2012. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91(6):732-6. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Holguin-Gomez L, Sastre Dominguez J. Occupational contact dermatitis in Spain. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2017;27(2):134-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Schmunes E, Keil J. Role of atopy in occupational dermatosis. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11(3):174-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: Process List