Suppr超能文献

两种检测毛囊蠕形螨密度方法的比较:标准化皮肤表面活检与直接显微镜检查。

Comparison of the two techniques for measurement of the density of Demodex folliculorum: standardized skin surface biopsy and direct microscopic examination.

机构信息

Department of Dermatology, Başkent University Faculty of Medicine, 5. Sokak no. 48, Bahçelievler 06490, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Br J Dermatol. 2010 May;162(5):1124-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09645.x. Epub 2010 Feb 25.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In daily dermatological practice, many dermatologists do not include demodicosis in their differential diagnoses, or the diagnosis of demodicosis is frequently masked by other skin diseases such as papulopustular or erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, seborrhoeic dermatitis, perioral dermatitis and contact dermatitis. There are two methods for measurement of the density of Demodex folliculorum (Dd): standardized skin surface biopsy (SSSB) and direct microscopic examination of fresh secretions from sebaceous glands (DME). No study has been reported in the literature comparing the diagnostic value of these two techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the value of the two techniques, SSSB and DME, for the measurement of Dd in patients with suspected demodicosis.

METHODS

Mite density was investigated using SSSB and DME in 37 patients with facial skin lesions suggesting demodicosis. Two samples, one for SSSB and one for DME, were obtained from a cheek lesion of each patient.

RESULTS

Twenty-three (62%) patients were diagnosed with demodicosis according to their clinical manifestations combined with a high Dd (Dd > 5 mites cm(-2)) with SSSB and/or DME. In all the patients, the mean Dd measured with SSSB was higher than that with DME (22.9 +/- 5.9 and 2.2 +/- 0.8, respectively; P = 0.001). Also, among the 23 patients with demodicosis, the mean Dd measured using SSSB was higher than the mean Dd with DME (36.5 +/- 8.3 and 3.4 +/- 1.2, respectively; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the use of SSSB for the measurement of Dd as more patients with demodicosis can be diagnosed with this method compared with the DME method.

摘要

背景

在日常皮肤科临床工作中,许多皮肤科医生并未将蠕形螨病纳入鉴别诊断,或者蠕形螨病的诊断经常被其他皮肤病如丘疹脓疱型或红斑毛细血管扩张型酒渣鼻、脂溢性皮炎、口周皮炎和接触性皮炎所掩盖。目前有两种方法可用于测量毛囊蠕形螨(Df)密度:标准化皮肤表面活检(SSSB)和直接显微镜检查皮脂腺新鲜分泌物(DME)。尚未有文献报道比较这两种技术的诊断价值。

目的

比较 SSSB 和 DME 两种技术在疑似蠕形螨病患者中测量 Df 的价值。

方法

对 37 例有面部皮损、疑似蠕形螨病的患者进行了 SSSB 和 DME 检查。每位患者的脸颊皮损处各取 1 个样本,分别用于 SSSB 和 DME。

结果

根据临床表现结合 SSSB 和/或 DME 检测到的高 Df(Dd>5 只/ cm²),23 例(62%)患者被诊断为蠕形螨病。所有患者中,SSSB 测量的平均 Dd 均高于 DME(分别为 22.9±5.9 和 2.2±0.8,P=0.001)。此外,在 23 例蠕形螨病患者中,SSSB 测量的平均 Dd 也高于 DME(分别为 36.5±8.3 和 3.4±1.2,P=0.0001)。

结论

我们建议使用 SSSB 测量 Dd,因为与 DME 方法相比,这种方法可以诊断出更多的蠕形螨病患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验