Severe dermatitis from Dermabond ® surgical glue

Cyanoacrylate Glue as an Alternative for Peritoneal Closure

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures. Traditionally, traumatic fixations have been used to prevent mesh migration, resulting in chronic pain in the groin. However, a non-traumatic alternative with cyanoacrylate glue is offered. A 50-year-old male patient underwent elective surgery for inguinal hernia repair. During the surgery, it was decided to use cyanoacrylate glue for mesh fixation without complications. In his follow-up consultation, the patient showed a satisfactory course. The use of cyanoacrylate glue, a synthetic resorbable adhesive, for more rapid wound closure has shown favorable results. It is characterized by a low rate of complications and a significant decrease in groin pain in the short- and medium-term. This technique is considered a viable and effective alternative for the reduction of complications, with promising clinical results.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Octyl Cyanoacrylate Skin Glue After Surgical Wound Closure: A Systematic Review

The rising incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) after cyanoacrylate adhesive use necessitates a comprehensive understanding of its clinical presentations, risk factors, and management. In this systematic review, we conducted an exhaustive search following PRISMA guidelines within Medline and PubMed databases to identify studies reporting cases of ACD resulting from cyanoacrylate adhesive application in wound closure. A total of 47 studies, covering 193 ACD cases, were included in our analysis. These cases involved 35 male, 120 female patients, and 38 cases without gender information (M:F ratio = 1:3.43), with ages ranging from 7 to 92 years (mean age 43.9 years). The majority of cases (n = 140) were part of 6 orthopedic studies, focusing on joint replacements (n = 68), orthopedic surgeries (n = 38), and breast surgeries (n = 29). The remaining 58 cases encompassed various surgical procedures. Common clinical manifestations included swelling, pruritic rash, erythema, vesicles, and itching around the surgical sites, typically appearing around 10 days post-adhesive application (within a range of 6 hours to 6 weeks). Patients with prior exposure to 2-octyl cyanoacrylate tended to exhibit earlier symptoms. Similar rates of dermatitis were observed across different adhesive brands, suggesting brand independence. Treatment strategies involved adhesive removal, administration of steroids and antihistamines, meticulous wound care, and, in some cases, surgical intervention. Notably, 3.1% of the 193 cases required surgical intervention. Risk factors, including a history of atopic dermatitis, high body mass index, diabetes, prior adhesive exposure, and surgical history, were identified in the studies. Patch tests confirmed 2-octyl cyanoacrylate as the allergen in 21 studies. Our review aims to enhance health care professionals' understanding of ACD resulting from the use of cyanoacrylate adhesive, facilitating improved postsurgical management and prevention strategies. Recognizing diverse risk factors, understanding varying clinical presentations, distinguishing ACD from infection, and employing appropriate treatment approaches are essential for achieving optimal outcomes in such cases.

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reaction to Dermabond (2-Octyl Cyanoacrylate) in Plastic Surgical Patients: A Retrospective Study

Background: The Dermabond (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) is a commonly used skin adhesive in plastic surgery. There are some reports in the literature regarding Dermabond associated contact dermatitis. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the incidence and characteristics of contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) post application of Dermabond (Trade name PRINEO manufactured by ETHICON) in patients who underwent plastic surgical breast procedures in our hospital. Methods: Sixty patients had undergone plastic surgical breast procedures (mastopexy and reduction mammoplasty) with Dermabond application over the period of last 3 years in our hospital. The records of these 60 patients were studied retrospectively. Results: Four patients (6.6%) out of the 60 patients taken for study had developed type IV hypersensitivity reaction to Dermabond. All of these patients presented with pruritus and skin rash in the second week of their post-operative period and none of them had any known past allergic history. Conclusion: We conclude that the incidence of type IV hypersensitivity allergic reaction post application of Dermabond (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) is significantly high and its possibility should be explained to the patients prior to its application.

Medical Adhesive Allergens: Retrospective Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001-2018

BACKGROUND

Identification of allergens causing medical adhesive contact allergy is difficult.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize the demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results and occupational data for North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patients with medical adhesive contact allergy.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 43,722 NACDG patients patch-tested 2001-2018, with: 1) medical adhesive (tapes/band aids/adhesive aids/suture glue) source, 2) positive patch test, and 3) final primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.

RESULTS

313 (0.7%) patients met inclusion criteria. Compared to other patients with final primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, medical adhesive allergy patients were less likely male (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.45-0.77]) and/or age >40 (0.76 [0.6-0.96]). The most common NACDG screening series allergens were colophony (80.7%), balsam of Peru (3.9%), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.7%) and carba mix (2.7%). One-fourth (79/313, 25.2%) had positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens/materials, and 17.3% (54/313) only had reactions to supplemental allergens/materials.

LIMITATIONS

Results of comprehensive patch testing may be prone to referral population selection bias and may not be representative of the general dermatology population.

CONCLUSION

Colophony was the most common allergen. Supplemental allergens and materials should be tested in the evaluation of suspected medical adhesive contact allergy.

Comparison of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive and interrupted polypropylene sutures for wound closure in total ankle arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Adhesive skin materials have increasingly been used in orthopedic surgery. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of skin adhesive (2-octyl cyanoacrylate and polymer mesh, Dermabond Prineo) and interrupted polypropylene sutures for wound closure in patients undergoing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 107 consecutive patients (108 ankles) undergoing TAA and divided them into two groups: skin adhesive group (36 ankles) and suture group (72 ankles). The primary outcome assessment included wound complications and patient satisfaction for wound cosmesis. The secondary outcome assessment included duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) pain and disability score.

RESULTS

There was one case of allergic contact dermatitis, three cases of wound dehiscence, and one case of superficial surgical site infection in the skin adhesive group. Among them, one case each with allergic contact dermatitis and wound dehiscence finally progressed to deep surgical site infection. Three cases of wound dehiscence were also reported in the suture group; however, there was no case of surgical site infection. Patient satisfaction for wound cosmesis was significantly higher in the skin adhesive group than in the suture group (p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of secondary outcomes (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of Dermabond Prineo showed better patient satisfaction for wound cosmesis, it showed significantly high wound complication rates and no other clinical benefits compared to interrupted polypropylene suture in TAA. Our results suggest that awareness of the possibility of wound complications is necessary when Dermabond Prineo is used in TAA.

Acrylates as a significant cause of allergic contact dermatitis: new sources of exposure

Acrylate monomers have a wide range of applications. Since the 1950s, many reports of occupational origin allergic contact dermatitis due to (meth)acrylate monomers have been published. During last decades, (meth)acrylate allergy has undergone an occupational shift from dentistry toward beauty industry and medical devices. The aim of the study was to conduct a literature review on acrylates as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis, current sources of exposure as well as identification of professional groups with an increased risk of this allergy and methods of effective prevention. Database review: Medline search (PubMed), Wiley Online Library and Web of Science base in years 1956–2019 using the following keywords: acrylates, manicurists, dentists, dental technicians, medical devices, occupational exposure, and allergic contact dermatitis. 204 346 articles containing the term ‘acrylates‘ have been found. They include 2 042 articles with the word ‘manicurists’, 169 919 – ‘dentists’, 218 236 – ‘dental technicians’, 2 427 418 – ‘medical devices’. Fifty-nine articles were chosen based on analysis of abstracts and full texts. In the past allergy to acrylates was mainly of occupational origin and dental technicians were the most often affected professional group. Since the long-lasting manicure has become popular, this problem concerns both manicurists and their customers. Moreover, the new significant trend is non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices especially dedicated to diabetes patients.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Dermabond Prineo After Elective Orthopedic Surgery

The Dermabond Prineo skin closure system (Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey) is a wound closure device that combines a 2-octyl cyanoacrylate liquid adhesive and a self-adhesive polyester mesh. Although cyanoacrylates traditionally have been associated with low rates of sensitization, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to Dermabond products is being increasingly reported after orthopedic surgery. The authors describe the first case series of ACD to Dermabond Prineo where patch testing confirmed the diagnosis in all patients. Six patients who had suspected Dermabond Prineo ACD after lower limb orthopedic surgery were assessed. Of these patients, 5 had itching within 4 days of surgery and rash within 5 days. All 5 of these patients reported previous exposure to Dermabond products. All patients had removal of the adhesive and mesh earlier than planned and were treated with corticosteroids. In addition, 4 patients received systemic antibiotics; however, only 1 had a microbiologically confirmed superficial skin infection. In all patients, the dermatitis resolved within 2 weeks of dressing removal, with no adverse effect on the orthopedic outcome. Patch testing showed positive reactions to Dermabond Prineo glue for all patients. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of the potential for ACD to Dermabond Prineo, especially among patients with previous exposure to Dermabond products. The authors discuss the risk factors for ACD to Dermabond Prineo in the orthopedic cohort and provide recommendations for prevention and management. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):e515-e522.].

Randomized clinical trial comparing skin closure with tissue adhesives vs subcuticular suture after robotic urogynecologic procedures

BACKGROUND

Skin closure techniques during minimally-invasive gynecologic surgery is largely based on surgeon preference. The optimum technique would theoretically be safe, rapid, inexpensive, and result in good cosmetic appearance. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (Dermabond) may be a comparable and safe option for port site closure as compared with subcuticular suture. In this randomized clinical trial, we hypothesized that operative time for skin closure would be less than subcuticular suture during robotic urogynecologic procedures.

AIM

To compare skin closure during robotic urogynecologic surgeries for tissue adhesives and subcuticular suture.

METHODS

Fifty female subjects > 18 years of age undergoing robotic urogynecologic procedures were randomized to have port site closure with either cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (n = 25) or subcuticular suture (n = 25). All procedures and postoperative evaluations were performed by the same board certified Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon. Incisional closure time was recorded. Each subject was followed for 12-wk postoperatively. Incision cosmesis was evaluated using the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 47 subjects (cyanoacrylate group, n = 23; suture group, n = 24) completed the 12-wk postoperative evaluation. Closure time was significantly less (P < 0.0005) using cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (5.4 ± 2.0 min) than subcuticular suture (24.9 ± 5.6 min). Cosmesis scores were significantly higher in the cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive group than subcuticular suture (P = 0.025). No differences were found between bleeding, infection, or dehiscence (P = 1.00, P = 0.609, P = 0.234, respectively). No statistical demographical differences existed between the two study arms.

CONCLUSION

Our study supported our original hypothesis that cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive for port site closure during robotic urogynecolgic procedures uses less time than with subcuticular suture. Our study also supports that tissue adhesive is comparable to cosmetic outcome while not jeopardizing rates of bleeding, infection, or dehiscence.

Allergic contact dermatitis due to the liquid skin adhesive Dermabond® predominantly occurs after the first exposure

BACKGROUND

The clinical characteristics of patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) due to a skin adhesive containing 2-octyl cyanoacrylate, Dermabond®, have not yet been elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with ACD caused by Dermabond® application.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 577 patch tested patients were included. We identified patients with positive patch test results for Dermabond® and evaluated their results concerning (meth)acrylates and ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive.

RESULTS

Nine patients had positive patch test results to Dermabond®; six had developed secondary generalization.The mean time between Dermabond® application and ACD onset was 34 days (range, 27-44) in six patients with ACD after the first use, whereas, in the other three patients, it was 5.6 days (range, 4-8) after the second use. The time was significantly different between the two groups (P < .01). Positive reactions to ethyl cyanoacrylate adhesive (Aron Alpha) occurred in seven of nine patients, to ethyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet. in four of eight patients tested, and to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in one of eight patients tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Dermabond®-induced ACD is apparently characterized by a high prevalence of primary sensitization at first exposure to Dermabond®, secondary generalization is frequent, and most patients show cross-reactivity to ethyl cyanoacrylate.

Patch Testing Ingredients of Dermabond and Other Cyanoacrylate-Containing Adhesives

BACKGROUND

Cyanoacrylates are strong adhesives used for a variety of medical, industrial, and cosmetic applications and have been implicated as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review our experience in patch testing with cyanoacrylates.

METHODS

We reviewed patch test results of 38 patients with a clinical history of contact dermatitis due to a cyanoacrylate-containing adhesive (mostly Dermabond). Testing used cyanoacrylates of >99% purity diluted to 10% to 30% in petrolatum (pet.), undiluted octyl cyanoacrylate, and/or Dermabond Mini or Advanced "as is." Patch tests were also performed with methacrylates, formaldehyde (a cyanoacrylate impurity), benzalkonium chloride, and cyanoacrylate polymerization inhibitors. Three patients were also tested with Dermabond Mini on abraded skin.

RESULTS

Commercial cyanoacrylate patch testing material (ethyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet.) detected 29% of Dermabond-allergic patients, whereas patch testing with octyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet. increased detection to 50%. Testing with higher concentrations and/or on abraded skin further increased yield. Thirteen (37%) of our 35 cyanoacrylate-allergic patients were also allergic to methacrylates or acrylates.

CONCLUSIONS

Octyl cyanoacrylate is the usual allergenic ingredient in Dermabond. Patch testing with high concentrations is often required. Testing Dermabond on abraded skin further improves diagnostic sensitivity by more closely simulating clinical use.

Recommendation to include hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate in the British baseline patch test series

BACKGROUND

(Meth)acrylates are potent sensitizers and a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The frequency of (meth)acrylate ACD has increased with soaring demand for acrylic nails. A preliminary audit has suggested a significant rate of positive patch tests to (meth)acrylates using aimed testing in patients providing a clear history of exposure. To date, (meth)acrylates have not been routinely tested in the baseline patch test series in the U.K. and Europe.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether inclusion of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 2% in petrolatum (pet.) in the baseline series detects cases of treatable (meth)acrylate ACD.

METHODS

During 2016-2017, 15 U.K. dermatology centres included 2-HEMA in the extended baseline patch test series. Patients with a history of (meth)acrylate exposure, or who tested positive to 2-HEMA, were selectively tested with a short series of eight (meth)acrylate allergens.

RESULTS

In total 5920 patients were consecutively patch tested with the baseline series, of whom 669 were also tested with the (meth)acrylate series. Overall, 102 of 5920 (1·7%) tested positive to 2-HEMA and 140 (2·4%) to at least one (meth)acrylate. Had 2-HEMA been excluded from the baseline series, (meth)acrylate allergy would have been missed in 36 of 5920 (0·6% of all patients). The top (meth)acrylates eliciting a positive reaction were 2-HEMA (n = 102, 1·7%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (n = 61, 1·0%) and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (n = 57, 1·0%).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that 2-HEMA 2% pet. be added to the British baseline patch test series. We also suggest a standardized short (meth)acrylate series, which is likely to detect most cases of (meth)acrylate allergy.

Contact Dermatitis Caused by Dermabond Advanced Use

Background:

Dermabond Advanced (DBA) has been widely used globally; however, severe contact dermatitis (CD) can be a serious adverse effect of DBA use. In this study, we investigated the characterization and incidence rate of CD after using DBA and the safe use of DBA.

Methods:

One hundred consecutive patients who underwent skin closure with DBA were investigated. All patients were women undergoing breast reconstruction. DBA was applied to their trunk and limbs following reconstruction.

Results:

Seven patients (7%) presented with CD. Of these, 4 patients exhibited CD after the second DBA use; sensitization influence by the first DBA use was considered. One of 3 patients presenting with CD after the first DBA use was allergic to cosmetic glue, and the influence of immunological cross-reaction of acrylates was suggested.

Conclusion:

We consider that DBA use is inadequate for wounds with an improper margin and in dry and low-skin barrier areas such as the trunk and limbs because it may induce irritant CD and sensitization of DBA and subsequent allergic CD. Frequent use can also induce sensitization. If patients have a history of acrylate allergies, DBA use should be avoided because immunological cross-reaction from acetylates could result.

Surgery-Related Contact Dermatitis: A Review of Potential Irritants and Allergens

Surgical procedures utilize an increasing number of medical products including antiseptics, anesthetics, gloves, suture materials, tissue adhesives, topical antibiotics, and bandages. Many of these products have irritant potential. Allergic contact dermatitis has also been reported. This review covers preoperative, operative, and postoperative exposures that may result in contact dermatitis. Testing with standard patch panels such as T.R.U.E. Test and the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 65 allergen series does not evaluate for all relevant contactants. A thorough understanding of potential exposures is vital to effectively evaluate a patient with surgery-related contact dermatitis. A systematic approach is needed to ensure that standard patch panels and supplementary patches adequately address each encountered contactant.

Using adhesive glue to repair first degree perineal tears: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of adhesive glue in repairing first degree perineal tears. We conducted a noninferiority prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing adhesive glue with traditional suturing. Each case was evaluated immediately after birth and after the puerperium. The two-sample t-test and the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test were applied to compare quantitative variables between the treatment groups. The chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used to assess the association between qualitative variables. A total of 102 women participated, 28 in the suture arm and 74 in the adhesive glue arm. While cosmetic and functional results of adhesive glue use were not inferior to suturing, the use of adhesive glue was associated with a shorter procedure, less need for local anesthetic, less pain, and greater satisfaction. Our results suggest a novel approach for the repair of common postpartum first degree lacerations. The use of adhesive glue achieves cosmetic and functional results equal to traditional suturing and offers some immediate advantages for the patient. While further clinical trials are needed to validate our results, it is important to inform obstetrician of the possible use of adhesive glue in these very common clinical scenarios. This trial is registered with NCT00746707.

Organ repair, hemostasis, and in vivo bonding of medical devices by aqueous solutions of nanoparticles

Sutures are traumatic to soft connective tissues, such as liver or lungs. Polymer tissue adhesives require complex in vivo control of polymerization or cross-linking reactions and currently suffer from being toxic, weak, or inefficient within the wet conditions of the body. Herein, we demonstrate using Stöber silica or iron oxide nanoparticles that nanobridging, that is, adhesion by aqueous nanoparticle solutions, can be used in vivo in rats to achieve rapid and strong closure and healing of deep wounds in skin and liver. Nanoparticles were also used to fix polymer membranes to tissues even in the presence of blood flow, such as occurring after liver resection, yielding permanent hemostasis within a minute. Furthermore, medical devices and tissue engineering constructs were fixed to organs such as a beating heart. The simplicity, rapidity, and robustness of nanobridging bode well for clinical applications, surgery, and regenerative medicine.