Rosacea (in German sometimes called 'Kupferfinne', in French 'Couperose' and in Italian 'Copparosa') is a chronic and frequently relapsing inflammatory skin disease primarily affecting the central areas of the face. Its geographic prevalence varies from 1% to 22%. The differential diagnosis is wide, and the treatment is sometimes difficult and varies by stage of rosacea. For erythematous lesions and telangiectasia, intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy and lasers are popular treatment option. In addition, a vasoconstrictor agent, brimonidine, has recently been developed. For papulopustular rosacea, topical antibiotics, topical and systemic retinoids, as well as systemic antibiotics are used. A topical acaricidal agent, ivermectin, has undergone clinical development and is now on the market. In the later stages, hyperplasia of the sebaceous glands develops, resulting in phymatous growths such as the frequently observed bulbous nose or rhinophyma. Ablative laser treatments have largely replaced classical abrasive tools. Here, we reviewed the current evidence on the treatment of rosacea, provide a guideline (S1 level) and discuss the differential diagnosis of rosacea.

FDG PET/CT and serum S-100B are not sensitive enough for the detection of liver metastases from UM, whereas liver metastases from cutaneous melanoma are reliably FDG positive and lead regularly to increased S-100B tumour markers. The reason for the lower FDG uptake in UM liver metastases remains unclear. We recommend to perform combined contrast-enhanced PET/CT in order to detect FDG-negative liver metastases from UM.

The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (DIEP) has gained widespread popularity in autologous breast reconstruction due to its natural aesthetic results and muscle‐sparing design. However, donor site results regarding aesthetic outcome are often less favorable. We therefore aimed to identify crucial factors that might increase the risk for abdominal bulging and an impaired aesthetic appearance. We conducted a multicenter study evaluating all patients receiving autologous breast reconstruction using a DIEP flap between 2013 and 2017. Medical records were analyzed with special attention to flap technique, number of perforators, localization of perforator, and donor site complications. In addition, the aesthetic appearance of the abdominal donor site was evaluated by blinded clinicians at one‐year follow‐up. A total of 242 patients underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Abdominal bulging occurred in 7%. Further subgroup analysis revealed a significant correlation between abdominal bulging and two or more perforators (P = .003), the use of lateral row perforators (P = .009), and a higher BMI (P = .002). Obesity (P = .003) and higher patient's age (P = .003) could be identified as risk factors for an undesirable appearance of the donor site. We recommend the use of a medial‐row single perforator whenever possible in order to optimize donor site morbidity and decrease the risk of abdominal bulging. Proper patient selection and careful donor site closure following a standardized approach should be performed to limit the risk of aesthetically undesirable results.

Background: Neutralizing (buffering) lidocaine 1%/epinephrine 1:100,000 solution (Lido/Epi) with sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3) (also called sodium bicarbonate) is widely used to reduce burning sensations during infiltration of Lido/Epi. Optimal mixing ratios have not been systematically investigated. Objectives: To determine whether a Lido/Epi:NaHCO3 mixing ratio of 3:1 (investigational medicinal product 1) causes less pain during infiltration than a mixing ratio of 9:1 (IMP2) or unbuffered Lido/Epi (IMP3). Methods: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial (n = 2 × 24) with 4 investigational medicinal products (IMP1-4). Results: The 3:1 mixing ratio was significantly less painful than the 9:1 ratio (P = .044). Unbuffered Lido/Epi was more painful than the buffered Lido/Epi (P = .001 vs IMP1; P = .033 vs IMP2). IMP4 (NaCl 0.9% [placebo]) was more painful than any of the anesthetic solutions (P = .001 vs IMP1; P = .001 vs IMP2; P = .016 vs IMP3). In all cases, the anesthesia was effective for at least 3 hours. Limitations: Results of this trial cannot be generalized to other local anesthetics such as prilocaine, bupivacaine, or ropivacaine, which precipitate with NaHCO3 admixtures. Conclusions: Lido/Epi-NaHCO3 mixtures effectively reduce burning pain during infiltration. The 3:1 mixing ratio is significantly less painful than the 9:1 ratio. Reported findings are of high practical relevance, given the extensive use of local anesthesia today.

BACKGROUND: Ultraviolet (UV) B radiation increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-D3 [25(OH)D], but the influence of UVA1 and UVA/narrowband UVB (UVBnb) phototherapy on serum vitamin D is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the influence of UVBnb, UVA1, and UVA/UVBnb phototherapy on serum levels of 25(OH)D and related parameters in patients with an inflammatory skin condition. METHODS: 25(OH)D, as well as calcium, parathormone, phosphate, and albumin were measured before therapy, 2 weeks after start, and after completion of the phototherapy. Diagnoses were divided in 4 groups: atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, morphea, and others. RESULTS: We surveyed 116 dermatologic patients undergoing phototherapy with UVA1 (n = 38), UVA/UVBnb (n = 30), or UVBnb (n = 48) 2 to 3 times a week for 53 to 90 days. UVBnb phototherapy increased serum 25(OH)D from 22.1 to 39.5 ng/mL after the therapy (P < .001). The lower the baseline 25(OH)D level was, the steeper the increase in 25(OH)D was upon application of UVBnb phototherapy. UVA/UVBnb therapy also increased serum 25(OH)D, from 23.9 to 50.3 ng/mL (P = .003). Conversely, in the UVA1 therapy group, 25(OH)D serum levels decreased significantly from 21.9 to 19.0 ng/mL (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The study design was open trial without randomization. An influence of a precise skin disease cannot be excluded because of the heterogeneous diagnoses. Bias may have arisen from patient preference for treatment at our center, referral, unrecognized differences in underlying skin disease, and other factors.