Porokeratosis ptychotropica represents a rare and under-recognized variant of porokeratosis. There are also alternative descriptions for this disorder in the literature. Since its original description in 1995, additional characteristic features have been showed in case reports published in the literature. These cumulative reports, although still limited in numbers, have helped to further shape and define this entity. A case report and review of published literature on this unusual entity are presented. The specific combination of clinical, morphological and histopathological characteristics that can facilitate recognition of the disorder is discussed. There has been a call for uniformity in terminology and a suggestion for alternative terminology has been made. However, we discuss why the earlier term, porokeratosis ptychotropica, is still preferred.
Background Sitting in new chairs or sofas has elicited dermatitis in numerous patients in Finland and in the U.K. since autumn 2006. The cause of the dermatitis seemed to be an allergen in the furniture materials. Objectives To determine the cause of the dermatitis in patients with furniture-related dermatitis. Methods Altogether 42 patients with furniture-related dermatitis were studied. First, 14 Finnish patients were patch tested with the standardized series and with the chair textile material. A thin-layer chromatogram (TLC) strip and an extract made from the same textile material were tested in seven Finnish patients. The test positive spot of the TLC and the content of a sachet found inside a sofa in the U.K. were analysed by using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. All chemicals analysed were patch tested in 37 patients. Results A positive patch test reaction to the chair textile and to its extract was seen in all patients tested, one-third of whom had concurrent reactions to acrylates. Positive reactions to the same spot of the TLC strip were seen in five of seven patients and dimethyl fumarate was analysed from the spot as well as from the sachet contents. Dimethyl fumarate (0.01%) elicited positive reactions in all the patients. The other chemicals analysed did not elicit positive reactions, but one patient in the U.K. had a positive reaction to tributyl phosphate. Conclusions Sensitization to dimethyl fumarate was seen in all the patients with furniture-related dermatitis. Concurrent sensitization or cross-reactions were common among the sensitized patients.
In February 2007, an epidemic of severe dermatitis from Chinese recliner chairs and sofas started to unfold first in Finland and a few months later in the UK. Some patients reacted in patch tests (PTs) strongly to the material of their furniture, either leather or fabric. There have been hundreds of reports of chair or sofa dermatitis from Finland and the UK, with all cases linked to the same furniture factory in China. Clinical findings in both countries were very similar and unlike any known dermatosis. Many cases have been quite severe, resembling mycosis fungoides or septic infections, requiring hospitalization. Commercial PTs did not reveal the cause but a fungicide was strongly suspected, although such use was denied by the factory. The laboratory of Malmö University Dermatology Clinic has helped in the process by making thin layer chromatograms from sofa or chair materials and test substances of suspected chemicals. Finally, sachets marked with 'mouldproof agent' were found in varying numbers and distribution in the sofas. These contained dimethyl fumarate (DMF) which proved in skin tests to cause strong positive reactions with down to 0.01 dilution. Reports from other countries (Belgium, France, Ireland, Sweden and Spain) have since appeared, and the EU has banned the use of DMF in consumer products.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.