© Borgis - Postępy Nauk Medycznych 3/2015, s. 173-176
*Karolina Hadasik1, Grzegorz Hadasik2, Ligia Brzezińska-Wcisło1
Potencjalne czynniki etiologiczne u pacjentów z uporczywym świądem odbytu
Potential etiologic factors in patients with persistent pruritus ani
1School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Department of Dermatology
Head of Department: prof. Ligia Brzezińska-Wcisło, MD, PhD
2Megrez District Specialistic Hospital in Tychy, General Surgery and Oncology Department
Head of Department: Bogdan Chmiel, MD, PhD
Streszczenie
Wstęp. Świąd odbytu to najczęstsza dolegliwość dermatologiczna okolicy anogenitalnej. Badania epidemiologiczne dotyczące czynników predysponujących dla tej dolegliwości są rzadkie. Występuje on u około 1-5% populacji, czterokrotnie częściej dotyczy mężczyzn niż kobiet, najczęściej w wieku 40-70 lat.
Cel pracy. Ocena potencjalnych czynników etiologicznych u pacjentów z uporczywym świądem odbytu.
Materiał i metody. W ciągu czterech lat zbadano 55 chorych z diagnozą uporczywego świądu odbytu. Algorytm diagnostyczny obejmował wywiad lekarski, badanie fizykalne, wymazy bakteriologiczne i mikologiczne, podstawowe badania laboratoryjne, testy naskórkowe, rektoskopię oraz w niektórych przypadkach wykonano biopsję skóry.
Wyniki. U 26 pacjentów zdiagnozowano wyprysk kontaktowy. Idiopatyczny świąd odbytu dotyczył 14 naszych chorych. Pięć osób miało paciorkowcowe zapalenie skóry okolicy odbytu, również 5 pacjentów miało wyprzenia drożdzakowe. U pozostałych pacjentów wykryto łuszczycę odwróconą, kłykciny kończyste, łupież rumieniowy, owsicę oraz świąd paraneoplastyczny.
Wnioski. Nasze badanie wykazało, iż znaczna większość pacjentów ma typowe cechy wyprysku okolicy anogenitalnej. Testy naskórkowe są bardzo ważną składową procesu diagnostycznego. Wyniki te sugerują, że najlepszą opcją terapeutyczno-diagnostyczną dla pacjentów ze świądem odbytu jest dermatolog współpracujący z proktologiem.
Summary
Introduction. Perianal pruritus is probably the most common cutaneous disorder of the genitoanal area. Studies on the epidemiology of causative factors are rare. It occurs in about 1-5% of the population, four times more often in men than women, most usually between the ages of 40-70.
Aim. Evaluation of potential etiologic factors in adult patients with persistent anal pruritus.
Material and methods. Over a 4-year period we prospectively studied 55 patients with a presumptive diagnosis of anal pruritus. The diagnostic algorithm comprised medical history, inspection, microbiology, laboratory chemistry, patch tests, proctoscopy, and biopsy if appropriate.
Results. Twenty six patients had contact eczema. Idiopathic anal pruritus affected 14 of our patients. Five subjects had perianal streptococcal dermatitis and also 5 patients had intertrigo caused by candida albicans. Other diagnosis included inverted psoriasis, condylomata acuminate, erythrasma, oxyuriasis and paraneoplastic pruritus.
Conclusions. Our study showed that the vast majority of patients have the typical characteristics of eczema in the anogenital area. Epidermal testing is a very important component of the diagnostic process. These findings suggest that referral to a dermatologist who cooperate with proctologist is the best option for patients with persistent pruritus ani.
Introduction
Anal itching (pruritus ani – PA) is an unpleasant sensation leading to scratching the skin around the anal oriface. The problem is often underestimated; it is embarrassing and can severely impair the patient’s quality of life. PA occurs in about 1-5% of the population, four times more often in men than women, most usually between the ages of 40-70 (1). It is a fairly common symptom occurring in the course of many systemic diseases, both dermatological and proctological. The etiology of itching in the anogenital distance is diverse; it can be associated with the most common proctological comorbidities – most often anal fissure or hemorrhoids. It also occurs in the course of various dermatoses such as allergic eczema, psoriasis inversa and lichen planus, also in infectious dermatoses, and it may be present as the so-called primary or idiopathic anal itching without any apparent reason (2). Other common causes include diaphoresis and inadequate crotch hygiene. The role of uncontrolled release of the mucus and fecal content and of excessive vaginal discharge in women is also stressed. It has been demonstrated that higher incidence of pruritus occurs in those patients who consume large amounts of coffee, chocolate, Coke, citrus fruits, milk and dairy products, and alcohol, particularly beer (3). It should also be emphasized that this ailment is often reported by those patients who overuse hygienic agents, cosmetics and topical drugs containing preservatives, local anesthetics and antibiotics (4).
Aim
The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential etiologic factors in adult patients with persistent anal pruritus.
Material and methods
The study included 55 patients of both sexes aged 20-79 who reported persistent anal itching present for at least four weeks and who were admitted to the Dermatology Outpatient Clinic and Specialist Proctological Office in 2011-2014.
After obtaining the patients’ consent for inclusion in the study, those subjects with pruritus ani who did not report a proctological disease were qualified into the study group. Enrolment was carried out on the basis of: dermatological examination, proctological examination (anoscopy, rectoscopy), laboratory tests, bacteriological and mycological smears collected from the anogenital distance, and epidermal tests.
Before treatment inclusion, each patient was subjected to laboratory tests: blood count with differential blood smear, bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), blood glucose, urinalysis, stool examination for parasites and EIA for lambliasis, and swabs from the anal area (bacteriological and mycological swabs).
Certified patch tests (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, were performed for Polish Baseline Series, external medications and cosmetics. Test reading was conducted during visits after 48, 72 and 98 hours. Two patients underwent a histopathological examination of skin specimen due to unclear clinical pictures.
Results
The study group comprised of 21 women and 34 men. After a thorough diagnosis, a proctological disease was excluded in all the patients, with 47.2% (26 subjects) diagnosed with contact eczema on the skin around the anus (fig. 1, 2). The most frequently repeated allergens included nickel, fragrance mixes, neomycin and paraben mixes. Idiopathic anal itching affected 25.4% of the patients (14 subjects) – in those subjects the lesions were often shallow linear cracks on the skin without inflammatory reaction; epidermal test results were negative; laboratory tests did not reveal any deviation. Three patients diagnosed with idiopathic anal itching had abundant pubic hair in the anogenital distance.
Fig. 1. Contact perianal eczema. Patch test positive for nickiel.
Fig. 2. Contact perianal eczema. Patch test positive for fragnance mix.
Powyżej zamieściliśmy fragment artykułu, do którego możesz uzyskać pełny dostęp.
Mam kod dostępu
- Aby uzyskać płatny dostęp do pełnej treści powyższego artykułu albo wszystkich artykułów (w zależności od wybranej opcji), należy wprowadzić kod.
- Wprowadzając kod, akceptują Państwo treść Regulaminu oraz potwierdzają zapoznanie się z nim.
- Aby kupić kod proszę skorzystać z jednej z poniższych opcji.
Opcja #1
29 zł
Wybieram
- dostęp do tego artykułu
- dostęp na 7 dni
uzyskany kod musi być wprowadzony na stronie artykułu, do którego został wykupiony
Opcja #2
69 zł
Wybieram
- dostęp do tego i pozostałych ponad 7000 artykułów
- dostęp na 30 dni
- najpopularniejsza opcja
Opcja #3
129 zł
Wybieram
- dostęp do tego i pozostałych ponad 7000 artykułów
- dostęp na 90 dni
- oszczędzasz 78 zł
Piśmiennictwo
1. Leiberman DA: Common anorectal disorders. Ann Intern Med 1984: 101: 837-846.
2. Daniel GL, Longo WE, Vernava AM 3rd: Pruritus ani. Causes and concerns. Dis Colon Rectum 1994: 37: 670-674.
3. Zuccati G, Lotti T, Mastrolorenzo A: Pruritus ani. Dermatol Ther 2005; 18: 355-362.
4. Nasseri YY, Osborne MC: Pruritus Ani: Diagnosis and Treatment. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 2013 Dec; 42(4): 801-813.
5. Bowyer A, McColl I: A study of 200 patients with pruritus ani. Proc R Soc Med 1970; 63 (suppl): 96-98.
6. Smith LE, Henrichs D, McCullah RD: Prospective studies on the etiology and treatment of pruritus ani. Dis Colon Rectum 1982; 25: 358-363.
7. Dasan S, Neill SM, Donaldson DR, Scott HJ: Treatment of persistent pruritus ani in a combined colorectal and dermatological clinic. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 1337-1340.
8. Harrington CI, Lewis FM, McDonagh AJ, Gawkrodger DJ: Dermatological causes of pruritus ani. BMJ 1992; 305: 955.
9. Markell KW, Billingham RP: Pruritus ani: etiology and management. Surg Clin North Am 2010; 90: 125-135.
10. Weismann K, Sand Petersen C, Roder B: Pruritus ani caused by beta-haemolytic streptococci. Acta Derm Venereol 1996; 76: 415.
11. Kranke B, Trummer M, Brabek E et al.: Etiologic and causative factors in perianal dermatitis: results of a prospective study in 126 patients. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2006; 118: 90-94.
12. Fornasa C, Trento A, Bezze G: Pruritus ani: aetiologic and causative factors in 94 adult patients. Pelviperineology 2007; 26: 178-179.
13. Mansour M, Weston LA: Perianal infections: a primer for nonsurgeons. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2010; 12: 270-279.
14. Oztaş MO, Oztaş P, Onder M: Idiopathic perianal pruritus: washing compared with topicalcorticosteroids. Postgrad Med J 2004; 80: 295-297.
15. Dziki A: Anatomia i fizjologia dolnego odcinka przewodu pokarmowego. [W:] Bielecki K, Dziki A (red.): Proktologia. PZWL, Warszawa 2000: 17-41.
16. Laurent A, Boucharlat J, Bosson JL et al.: Psychological assessment of patients with idiopathic pruritus ani. Psychother Psychosom 1997: 66: 163-166.