4.5 Review

Corynebacterium-associated skin infections

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 9, Pages 884-890

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2008.03773.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Corynebacterium spp. are diphtheroid bacteria responsible for pitted keratolysis, a common plantar infection confined to the thick stratum corneum. Aim To study a series of demographic features of patients suffering from pitted keratolysis, and to present a review of the Corynebacterium-associated infections, including pitted keratolysis, erythrasma, and trichobacteriosis. Materials and methods A 2-year, two-center, prospective survey assessed the demographics of pitted keratolysis, including age, gender, site of infection, symptoms, patients' complaints, the use of protective and/or occlusive shoes, seasonality of diagnosis, drug intake, associated skin signs (including dyshidrosis, erythrasma, and trichobacteriosis), recurrences, and previous diagnoses and treatments. Results The mean age of the 53 patients with pitted keratolysis was 24.9 years (range, 10-57 years). The male to female ratio was 7.8 : 1. The soles of both feet were commonly involved (92.4%). Pressure-bearing areas were the usual sites of infection, ranging from restricted involvement of the toes (12/53, 22.6%) to spreading to the entire plantar surface (15/53, 28.3%). A total of 36 (68%) of the 53 patients complained of hyperhidrosis. An unpleasant smell and pain were noted by 35 (66%) and 25 (47%) of the 53 patients, respectively. Occlusive and protective shoes were worn in 51 (96.2%) and 31 (58.4%) of the 53 cases, respectively. Conclusion Pitted keratolysis commonly affects young male patients wearing protective shoes for professional reasons, inducing a moist and warm environment. Hyperhidrosis, an unpleasant smell, and pain are the main clinical complaints.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available