Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T10:04:47.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diffuse Cutaneous Allergic Reaction to Dermabond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2014

Joseph A. Ricci*
Affiliation:
Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MassachusettsUSA
Nirav N. Parekh
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaUSA
Naman S. Desai
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MassachusettsUSA
*
Correspondence: Joseph A. Ricci, MD Division of Plastic Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital 75 Francis Street Boston, Massachusetts 02115 USA E-mail jaricci@partners.org

Abstract

Wound closure with 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (Dermabond; Ethicon, Somerville, New Jersey USA) has recently increased in popularity across a wide spectrum of physicians ranging from surgeons to emergency medicine practitioners. Generally, very few complications are associated with Dermabond and are usually related to application techniques. Uncommonly, patients present with allergic reactions to the adhesive compounds; these allergies are often misdiagnosed as cellulitis or another infectious process, and are incorrectly treated. This report describes a rare case of a diffuse cutaneous allergic reaction to Dermabond following its use to close a surgical incision, its prompt identification, and treatment after presentation to an emergency department.

RicciJA, ParekhNN, DesaiNS. Diffuse Cutaneous Allergic Reaction to Dermabond. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(5):1-3.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Perry, AW, Sosin, M. Severe allergic reaction to Dermabond. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(4):314-316.Google Scholar
2.Nipshagen, MD, Hage, JJ, Beekman, WH. Use of 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate skin adhesive (Dermabond) for wound closure following reduction mammaplasty: a prospective, randomized intervention study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(1):10-18.Google Scholar
3.Handschel, JG, Depprich, RA, Dirksen, D, Runte, C, Zimmermann, A, Kubler, NR. A prospective comparison of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate and suture in standardized facial wounds. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35(4):318-323.Google Scholar
4. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA summary memo: General and Plastic Surgery Devices Advisory Committee (Panel) Meeting, August 25, 2006. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4233b2_01.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2014.Google Scholar
5.El-Dars, LD, Chaudhury, W, Hughes, TM, Stone, NM. Allergic contact dermatitis to Dermabond after orthopaedic joint replacement. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62(5):315-317.Google Scholar
6.Sachse, MM, Junghans, T, Rose, C, Wagner, G. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(5):317-319.Google Scholar
7.Hivnor, CM, Hudkins, ML. Allergic contact dermatitis after postsurgical repair with 2-octylcyanoacrylate. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(6):814-815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Dragu, A, Unglaub, F, Schwarz, S, et al. Foreign body reaction after usage of tissue adhesives for skin closure: a case report and review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(2):167-169.Google Scholar
9.Kanerva, L, Jolanki, R, Estlander, T. 10 years of patch testing with the (meth)acrylate series. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(6):255-258.Google Scholar
10.Tomb, RR, Lepoittevin, JP, Durepaire, F, Grosshans, E. Ectopic contact dermatitis from ethyl cyanoacrylate instant adhesives. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28(4):206-208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Belsito, DV. Contact dermatitis to ethyl-cyanoacrylate-containing glue. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17(4):234-236.Google Scholar