4.6 Article

Predilection sites of pyoderma gangrenosum: Retrospective study of 170 clearly diagnosed patients

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14323

Keywords

chronic wounds; leg ulcer; PARACELSUS score; predilection sites; pyoderma gangrenosum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study analyzed the predilection sites of PG in patients with clear diagnosis using the PARACELSUS score. The study found that the lower legs and extensor sides were the most common predilection sites for PG. This is the first study to identify predilection sites for PG using the PARACELSUS score.
Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a non-infectious, neutrophilic dermatosis that was difficult to diagnose in clinical practice. Today, the PARACELSUS score is a validated tool for diagnostics. Based on this score, patients with clearly diagnosed PG were examined with regard to predilection sites. In this retrospective study, the data of patients from the University Hospitals of Essen and Erlangen were analysed in whom the diagnosis of PG could be clearly confirmed using the PARACELSUS score. A total of 170 patients, 49 men (29%) and 121 women (71%) with an average age at first manifestation of 55.5 years, could be included in the analysis. The predilection sites were identified as the lower legs in 80.6% of the patients and the extensor sides in 75.2%. Other localisations of PG were the thighs in 14.1%, mammae and abdomen in 10.0% each, back and gluteal in 7.1% each, feet in 5.9%, arms in 4.7%, genital in 3.5% and head in 2.9%. This retrospective study is the first to identify a collective of PG patients with the highest data quality using the PARACELSUS score. It could be shown that PG can basically occur on the entire integument. However, the predilection sites of PG, which have now been reliably identified for the first time, are the lower legs and in particular the extensor sides.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available