Friday, 19 July 2024

 

   Bunionette Deformity (Tailor's Bunion)



                                  Dr. KS Dhillon



Introduction

Bunionette refers to a prominence on the lateral aspect of the fifth metatarsal head. It may or may not be symptomatic. Bunionettes have traditionally been referred to as “tailor’s bunion” since it is prevalent among tailors, who sit cross-legged all day with the lateral edge of their feet rubbing on the ground. There are specific risk factors that predispose patients to this deformity. The deformity is usually treated conservatively. Surgical intervention may be needed for patients who continue to experience pain and disability.


Anatomy and pathophysiology

Symptomatic bunionette deformities are often associated with anatomic variations. Coughlin in 1990 (1) described several anatomic factors that can contribute to symptomatic bunionette deformities. These include:

  • Congenital plantarflexed or dorsiflexed metatarsals

  • Increased four to five intermetatarsal angle (IMA)

  • Prominence of the metatarsal head

  • Lateral bowing of the metatarsal shaft 

Typically the toe is adducted at the MP joint (fig 1). Congenital deformities such as brachymetatarsia and splayfoot have been linked to the development of bunionette deformities (2,3). Soft tissue abnormalities can accompany bunionette deformities. Ankle and hindfoot deformities and plantarflexed metatarsals are associated with plantar callosity and increased pressure on wearing shoes (4).



Fig 1.


Evaluation

The bunionette deformity is more common in women than men. The reported ratios vary from 2:1 to 10:1. Bilateral deformity is common (5). Patients with symptomatic bunionette deformities usually present with pain at the lateral side of the forefoot. The pain is usually exacerbated by wearing closed shoes. Some patients have more pain in the plantar-lateral forefoot rather than on the lateral side. Other metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint pathologies have to be ruled out during the examination. Non-Inflammatory, crystal, and inflammatory arthropathies have to be ruled out. In patients with suspected inflammatory arthritis, the rheumatoid nodules should be evaluated with ultrasound or MRI to assess the extent of the disease. The deformity and prominence in such cases are caused by chronic synovitis. The chronic synovitis causes capsular distension (6). Sometimes chronically inflamed bursal tissue can develop lateral to the bony prominence. This can worsen the clinical picture.

A complete ankle and foot examination is necessary to define the exact pathology and also to identify other co-existing pathologies. The clinician should look for pes planus and hindfoot (1,7,8). Splayfoot deformity arises When there are coexisting hallux valgus and bunionette deformities, splayfoot deformity arises (2). Coughlin carried out a study in 20 patients (30 feet) with symptomatic bunionettes refractory to conservative treatment who underwent longitudinal diaphyseal osteotomy, lateral condylectomy, and distal metatarsophalangeal realignment and found that 60% of patients required correction of additional deformities including hallux valgus, hallux rigidus, and hammertoe deformities, among others (30%, 10% and 7%, respectively (9). Examination of the skin and subcutaneous tissue is important. Lateral eminence swelling with either keratosis, erythema,  ulceration, or callosity has to be evaluated. Callosity can be present on the plantar aspect or laterally. In patients where these lesions extend to the plantar surface, elevation of the metatarsal head in addition to medialization should be carried out (4,10).

Radiographic examination starts with standard weight-bearing X-rays with anterior posterior and lateral views. There are several angles that have been described in the assessment of bunionette deformity. Most often, the 5th MTP joint angle (MTP-5 angle), the 4–5 IMA, and the fifth metatarsal lateral deviation angle are measured. The average MTP-5 angle is 10.2. Ninety percent of normal feet have an angle of 14 degrees or less (11).

The MTP-5 angle shows the medial deviation of the toe in relation to the metatarsal shaft. The average angle in normal feet is 10.2 degrees. In 90% of normal feet, the angle is 14 degrees or less (5,11). On average an MTP-5 angle of 16 degrees or more produces symptoms (4,5,9). Another angle that is commonly measured is the 4–5 IMA. The 4-5 IMA measures the divergence of the 4th and 5th metatarsals. When a line is drawn through the axis of each metatarsal, the 4–5 IMA angle is the angle at the intersection of the lines Fig 2.

The most common method to bisect The axis of the metatarsal can be bisected by using a line on the medial and lateral margins of the proximal metaphysis and the metatarsal neck (4,5,12). The average of the 4–5 IMA angle is 10.8 degrees (5). Fallat and Buckholz were of the opinion that the most consistent way to determine the axis of the 5th metatarsal shaft is to use a line adjacent and parallel to the medial surface of the proximal half of the metatarsal shaft (13).

 

Fig 2.


When comparing normal feet (6.5 degrees) to feet with bunionettes (8.7 degrees) they found a difference of 2 degrees. They found a change in 4–5 IMAs when foot position goes from inversion to eversion. There was a change of 3 degrees in 4–5 IMAs (13). The consensus settled on abnormal 4–5 IMAs values equal to or greater than 9 (4).

Excessive lateral bowing of the fifth metatarsal shaft can contribute 

to the development of a painful bunionette (1,4,9,14,15). In these patients, the 4–5 IMA may be normal. A lateral curvature of the 5th metatarsal diaphysis causes the deformity. According to Fallat and Buckholz, this measurement is the angle created by a line parallel and adjacent to the proximal medial surface of the fifth metatarsal and a line representing the axis of the distal metatarsal (13). Nestor et al (5) did not find a difference in lateral bowing between symptomatic bunionettes and controls. Fallat and Buckholz, however, found an average lateral bowing of 8.1 degrees compared to controls (2.6 degrees) (13). The estimated incidence of patients who undergo surgery for symptomatic bunionettes who present with bowing of the 5th metatarsal shaft ranges from 10% to 23% (4). The width of the 5th metatarsal head also contributes to symptomatic bunionettes. The normal width of the 5th metatarsal head is about 13 mm, and it varies from 11 to 14 mm (13,16). The incidence of an abnormally large metatarsal width ranges from 16% to 33% (4).


Classification

Coughlin suggested a classification system based on radiographic parameters for bunionettes that is widely used today (9).

  • Type 1 refers to an enlarged 5th metatarsal head

  • Type 2 refers to normal 4–5 IMA with an increased lateral bow of the 5th metatarsal shaft

  • Type 3 refers to an increased 4–5 IMA

Type 3 is the most common type in patients with symptomatic bunionettes. This makes the 4–5 IMA the most important factor to play a role in symptomatic bunionettes (4).


Nonoperative Treatment

Literature regarding successful nonsurgical treatment options for symptomatic bunionettes is limited. According to Shi et al more than 90% of patients with symptomatic bunionette deformities resolve without invasive treatment (7). Non-operative treatment should always be attempted before any surgery is carried out. Non-operative management usually involves symptomatic treatment of pain and the callosities. Shoe modification with a wider toe box can help patients control pain. Callosities can be managed with protective pads and shaving. Grice et al showed the efficacy of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of little toe MP joint synovitis (17). No long-term studies have, however, shown improvement of symptoms with non-surgical management.


Operative Treatment

The operative treatment of bunionette deformities will largely depend on the type of deformity. The classification system of bunionette deformities helps doctors establish an algorithm that can be used to treat these deformities. The surgical treatment options include:

  • Metatarsal head resection

  • Proximal or midshaft oblique osteotomies

  • Distal chevron osteotomies

  • Subcapital oblique osteotomies

  • Scarf osteotomy, 

  • Ludloff variant osteotomy


Metatarsal head resection is associated with poor outcomes. It is only reserved for unhealthy patients, or in patients with an infectious or inflammatory process. 

Kitaoka and Holiday reported poor results at 8 years follow-up in 7 patients (11 feet) undergoing metatarsal head resections (18). The poor outcomes included persistent lateral forefoot prominence, transfer metatarsalgia, and painful fifth toe deformity. The authors recommend against the use of metatarsal head resections. Nonetheless, metatarsal head resection does have a role in rheumatoid arthritis patients. In a retrospective study of 56 rheumatic feet, Reize et al showed successful results in terms of cosmetic and functional outcomes as well as pain control following resection of the first through fifth metatarsal heads for long-standing rheumatoid forefoot deformity (19).

Distal chevron osteotomy is a popular technique for the treatment of Type I bunionette deformities. Kitaoka et al performed 19 distal chevron metatarsal osteotomy operations in 13 patients with painful bunionettes. At a 7.1-year follow-up, they reported good outcomes without failures (20). The MTP 5 angle, IMA 4–5 angle, and forefoot width improved at follow-up. They had one case of transfer metatarsalgia and one case of wound infection. Boyer and Deorio reported good outcomes in 10 patients with symptomatic bunionette deformity who underwent 12 distal fifth metatarsal chevron osteotomies in which an absorbable poly-p-dioxanone suture (PDS) pin was used for fixation. All patients had radiographic union and high patient satisfaction (21).

Type I bunionette deformities can also be treated by a subcapital oblique osteotomy. Cooper and Coughlin in a retrospective review of 16 feet in 14 patients with a follow-up of approximately 3 years, showed good clinical results for correction of type I deformities (14). There was improved patient satisfaction and pain control. However, there was no significant improvement in IMA 4–5 angle post-operatively. This procedure has more flexibility than the chevron osteotomy. Besides translating the metatarsal head laterally, the metatarsal head can be elevated to alleviate plantar pressure.

Diaphyseal osteotomies are carried out when there is increased lateral bowing or IMA 4–5 angles. To correct bunionette deformities, Coughlin described an oblique osteotomy of the metatarsal shaft in conjunction with lateral condylectomy and distal MTP realignment. He reported 93% of good or excellent outcomes in 30 feet (9). More recently, Waizy et al showed improvement in patient satisfaction, lateral bowing, and radiographic measurements of IMA 4–5 angle with a reverse Ludloff osteotomy for type II and III bunionette deformities. They had no complications or revision procedures (22). Shi et al (7) reported several studies that reported similar outcomes with Ludloff variants and scarf osteotomies for type II and type III bunionette deformities.

Very proximal fifth metatarsal osteotomies are not recommended because of concerns of nonunion. Tenous blood supply to the proximal metaphyseal-diaphyseal region and higher stresses on the bone in this region can contribute to poor healing. Despite this, some doctors continue to carry out these osteotomies to address bunionette deformities with increased IMA 4–5 angles. Okuda et al (23) reported the outcome of proximal dome-shaped osteotomy in 8 patients (10 feet). They found significant improvement in MTP 5 angle and IMA 4–5 angles. The results were good in all 8 patients. There were, however, 3 cases of delayed union at the osteotomy site. They found that all 3 cases of delayed union had osteotomies that were more proximal than those with expected union rates. Therefore, they advised against performing osteotomies at sites that are too proximal.

In recent years, minimally invasive surgical techniques have become popular for several ankle and foot conditions. Giannini et al (24) reported excellent results in 32 patients (18 bilateral) using a transverse distal metatarsal osteotomy, for type II and III deformities. Waizy et al (25) reported their results using a similar technique in 31 feet. They, however, found good to excellent results in 16 feet, satisfactory in 14, and poor results in 9 feet. The results were inferior for type II and III deformities. According to them, this technique should only be used for type I deformity.

There are many variations in the post-operative care. Some doctors opt for non-weight bearing for 6 weeks. In these patients, the foot is placed in a splint following surgery and later a short leg cast is applied for 6 weeks. After 6 weeks the patient is allowed weight-bearing activities in a post-operative shoe. The patient is expected to return to normal activities at 8–10 weeks. Other doctors prefer a post-operative protocol that involves immediate heel-weight bearing in a post-operative shoe for 6 weeks. The patient is gradually allowed full weight bearing and is expected to return to normal activities between 8–10 weeks postoperatively.


Complications

The overall complication rate is low following correction of bunionette deformity (7). Some of the complications include: 

  • Malunion

  • Nonunion

  • Recurrence

  • Wound complications

  • Avascular necrosis

  • Transfer metatarsalgia

Avascular necrosis and nonunion can result from excessive soft tissue stripping during the surgery. Inadequate immobilization of the osteotomy site due to poor or lack of internal fixation can also lead to nonunion and malunion. Extension of the proximal osteotomy into watershed areas can increase the risk of delayed union. 

Since the metatarsal is small sized, distal osteotomies are at risk of instability due to poor fixation or overcorrection. Chevron osteotomies that translate more than 50% can lead to instability. Transfer metatarsalgia may occur if the fifth metatarsal is excessively elevated or shortened. The lateral dorsal cutaneous branch and sural nerve are at risk with any bunionette procedure and must be protected. A study by Malagelada et al (26) found that the nerve has variability and they described safe zones to protect it during minimally invasive techniques. When the procedure of choice fails to address the underlying driver of the deformity, recurrence of deformity is seen in all types of bunionette deformity. Hence, the chances of recurrence will be reduced if there is an adequate understanding of the types of deformities and the corresponding surgery. 


Conclusions

Bunionette deformity is less common than hallux valgus and other forefoot disorders. It can, however, be a source of significant disability and pain. A proper evaluation is required with close examination of the entire ankle and foot. Initial treatment usually focuses on symptomatic relief. Several surgical options are available when conservative treatment fails. Excellent outcomes can be obtained with proper surgical selection and technique.


References

  1. Coughlin MJ. Etiology and treatment of the bunionette deformity. Instr Course Lect 1990;39:37-48.

  2. Bishop J, Kahn A, Turba JE. Surgical correction of the splayfoot: the Giannestras procedure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;234-8. 

  3. Schimizzi A, Brage M. Brachymetatarsia. Foot Ankle Clin 2004;9:555-70.

  4. Cooper MT. The Bunionette Deformity: Overview and Classification. Tech Foot Ankle Surg 2010;9:2-4.

  5. Nestor BJ, Kitaoka HB, Ilstrup DM, et al. Radiologic anatomy of the painful bunionette. Foot Ankle 1990;11:6-11.

  6. Brooks F, Hariharan K. The rheumatoid forefoot. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2013;6:320-7.

  7. Shi GG, Humayun A, Whalen JL, et al. Management of Bunionette Deformity. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018;26:e396-404.

  8. Ceccarini P, Rinonapoli G, Nardi A, et al. Bunionette. Foot Ankle Spec 2017;10:157-61.

  9. Coughlin MJ. Treatment of bunionette deformity with longitudinal diaphyseal osteotomy with distal soft tissue repair. Foot Ankle 1991;11:195-203.

  10. Cooper MT, Coughlin MJ. Subcaptial Oblique Fifth Metatarsal Osteotomy Versus Distal Chevron Osteotomy for Correction of Bunionette Deformity. Foot Ankle Spec 2012;5:313-7.

  11. Steel MW, Johnson KA, DeWitz MA, et al. Radiographic Measurements of the Normal Adult Foot. Foot Ankle 1980;1:151-8.

  12. Schoenhaus H, Rotman S, Meshon AL. A review of normal inter-metatarsal angles. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1973;63:88-95.

  13. Fallat LM, Buckholz J. An analysis of the tailor’s bunion by radiographic and anatomical display. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1980;70:597-603.

  14. Cooper MT, Coughlin MJ. Subcapital oblique osteotomy for correction of bunionette deformity: medium-term results. Foot Ankle Int 2013;34:1376-80.

  15. Yancey HA. Congenital lateral bowing of the fifth metatarsal. Report of 2 cases and operative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1969;203-5.

  16. Zvijac JE, Janecki CJ, Freeling RM. Distal oblique osteotomy for tailor’s bunion. Foot Ankle 1991;12:171-5.

  17. Grice J, Marsland D, Smith G, et al. Efficacy of Foot and Ankle Corticosteroid Injections. Foot Ankle Int 2017;38:8-13.

  18. Kitaoka HB, Holiday AD. Metatarsal head resection for bunionette: long-term follow-up. Foot Ankle 1991;11:345-9.

  19. Reize P, Leichtle CI, Leichtle UG, et al. Long-term results after metatarsal head resection in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Foot ankle Int 2006;27:586-90.

  20. Kitaoka HB, Holiday AD, Campbell DC. Distal Chevron metatarsal osteotomy for bunionette. Foot Ankle 1991;12:80-5.

  21. Boyer ML, Deorio JK. Bunionette deformity correction with distal chevron osteotomy and single absorbable pin fixation. Foot ankle Int 2003;24:834-7.

  22. Waizy H, Jastifer JR, Stukenborg-Colsman C, et al. The Reverse Ludloff Osteotomy for Bunionette Deformity. Foot Ankle Spec 2016;9:324-9.

  23. Okuda R, Kinoshita M, Morikawa J, et al. Proximal dome-shaped osteotomy for symptomatic bunionette. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;173-8.

  24. Giannini S, Faldini C, Vannini F, et al. The minimally invasive osteotomy “S.E.R.I.” (simple, effective, rapid, inexpensive) for correction of bunionette deformity. Foot ankle Int 2008;29:282-6.

  25. Waizy H, Olender G, Mansouri F, et al. Minimally invasive osteotomy for symptomatic bunionette deformity is not advisable for severe deformities: a critical retrospective analysis of the results. Foot Ankle Spec 2012;5:91-6.

  26. Malagelada F, Dalmau-Pastor M, Sahirad C, et al. Anatomical considerations for minimally invasive osteotomy of the fifth metatarsal for bunionette correction - A pilot study. Foot (Edinb) 2018;36:39-42.






Monday, 1 July 2024

 

            Erysipelas


                                  Dr. KS Dhillon




Introduction

Erysipelas is a skin infection that involves the dermis layer of the skin. It can also extend to the superficial cutaneous lymphatics. Erysipelas is characterized by an area of erythema which is well-demarcated and raised. It usually affects the lower extremities, with the face being the second most commonly affected site. It is also referred to as “St. Anthony’s Fire” due to the intense fiery rash. Its diagnosis can overlap with cellulitis. Often a definite diagnosis cannot be made. As compared to cellulitis which has ill-defined borders and is slower to develop, erysipelas has better-defined borders and develops faster. Although erysipelas can be serious it is rarely fatal. It responds rapidly and favorably to antibiotics. Usually, local complications are more common than systemic complications. Group A streptococci is the most common cause.


Etiology

In this infection, streptococci are involved. Facial infections are usually due to Group A streptococcus. Lower extremity infections are usually caused by non-group A streptococcus. A prospective study in Norway by Rath et al (1) showed that beta-hemolytic streptococci were the leading cause of facial cellulitis (1). The leading cause of postpartum erysipelas in neonates is Group B streptococcus. Erysipelas starts with a break in the skin which leads to inoculation of the bacteria. Insect bites, surgical incisions, stasis ulcerations, and venous stasis are among the several entry portals. Facial erysipelas can also be caused by nasopharynx infection.

In the literature, there is little evidence to show that staphylococcus plays a role in erysipelas (2).

The risk factors for erysipelas include:

  • Excision of the saphenous vein for bypass

  • Post-surgery (e.g. mastectomy)

  • Nephrotic syndrome

  • Lymphatic edema (major risk factor)

  • Lymphatic obstruction

  • Arteriovenous fistula

  • Immunocompromised state


Epidemiology

Many of the epidemiological studies on erysipelas have been done in different settings in different countries. Erysipelas can affect people of all races, age groups, and sex. There are some studies that show that erysipelas is more common in females. With the development of antibiotics and improved sanitation, the incidence of erysipelas has decreased. Erysipelas is most common in the extremes of age but it can affect individuals of all age groups (3).


Pathophysiology

A break in the skin leads to skin infection. It directly invades the lymphatic system and causes erysipelas. Surgical incisions, stasis ulceration, insect bites, and venous insufficiency are possible portals of entry into the skin. Some risk factors for the development of erysipelas are eczema, obesity,  lymphedema, leg ulcers, athlete’s foot, intravenous drug abuse, liver disease, and poorly controlled diabetes. Recurrent erysipelas have also been reported. The infection typically reoccurs at the same site (4).


Histopathology

Histopathology will show dermal edema, significant vascular dilatation, and invasion of bacteria into the connective tissue and lymphatics. Invasion of blood vessels is rare.

History and Physical

The diagnosis of erysipelas is clinical. Obtaining a history of any recent skin trauma or pharyngitis is important. Patients with erysipelas usually have systemic symptoms, such as fever, malaise, and chills 48 hours before developing the skin lesion. Erysipelas presents as an area of skin erythema with raised edges. Patients usually complain of itchiness, burning, and tenderness at the site. In patients with more severe disease, there can be bullae, vesicles, and even frank necrosis.

It is important to know the location of inflammation. In patients with lower limb erysipelas, examining the interdigital toe spaces for scaling, fissures, or maceration is important. The presence of redness and swelling involving a joint should raise suspicion of other more serious disease processes like septic arthritis.


Evaluation

For the diagnosis of erysipelas, no laboratory tests are needed. Elevated ESR, leukocytosis, and elevated C-reactive protein are common. The outcome of these investigations will not change the management or the treatment plan for otherwise healthy individuals. Blood cultures are not routinely obtained since they have a low yield. However, blood tests and cultures are useful in the immunocompromised, and ill-appearing patients. 

Extensive workup should be carried out in patients with prosthetic heart valves, in patients who may be intravenous drug abusers and in those with other intravascular devices. Patients with sepsis will require a full workup and resuscitation.


Management

When erysipelas is suspected antibiotics against streptococci should be started. Penicillin remains the first-line antibiotic for the treatment of erysipelas. Antibiotic coverage against MRSA remains controversial. The  Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2014 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (5) recommend coverage against MRSA in patients “whose cellulitis is associated with penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, nasal colonization with MRSA, injection drug use, or SIRS”.  Most patients with erysipelas can be discharged from the hospital with oral antibiotics. The antibiotics are usually given for 5 days, the period however can be extended to 10 days if the infection is not controlled. Hospitalization is recommended if there is necrotizing infection, the patient is immunocompromised, the patient has poor adherence to medications and follow-up, and for patients whose outpatient treatment is not working.

Prophylactic antibiotics have been used in patients with recurrent cellulitis for over 40 years (6).

In a Cochrane analysis of five trials involving the use of prophylactic antibiotics, particularly penicillin showed that prophylactic antibiotics reduced the recurrence by 69% (7). 

A retrospective study by Rob and Hercogová showed that Benzathine penicillin G once every 3 weeks was effective prophylaxis for recurrent erysipelas. They however could not conclude how long the prophylaxis treatment was required (8). 

In patients who have 3 to 4 episodes of cellulitis per year, despite attempts to treat or control predisposing factors, the 2014 practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections recommend oral penicillin or erythromycin twice a day for 4 to 52 weeks, or intramuscular benzathine penicillin every 2 to 4 weeks. Patients with fever are provided with hydration, cold compresses, and acetaminophen. Surgical debridement is necessary for patients with abscesses or gangrene. Infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals are usually admitted to the ward.


Differential Diagnosis

Some diseases can mimic erysipelas (9). These diseases all present with edema, erythema, pain, and warmth. Some of the more serious conditions include necrotizing fasciitis, orbital cellulitis, septic bursitis, DVT, septic arthritis, phlegmasia cerulea dolens, flexor tenosynovitis, and toxic shock syndrome.  The less serious conditions include gout, felon, cellulitis, abscess, and paronychia.




Prognosis

The prognosis of erysipelas is usually good. The patient can be treated in the outpatient setting. Response to oral antibiotics is usually good. Extra caution has to be taken in immunocompromised patients and in those with poor adherence to medication. In severe cases affecting those who are infants, immunocompromised, and the elderly, hospitalization for intravenous antibiotics is recommended. Close monitoring and observation is required in patients who are most likely not going to comply with instructions or complete their antibiotic course due to psychological or social reasons.


Complications

Complications arising from erysipelas can be serious. They, however, are rarely fatal. Some local complications arising from erysipelas include: Abscess formation

  • Scarlet fever

  • Meningitis

  • Skin necrosis

  • Hemorrhagic purpura

  • Pneumonia

  • Thrombophlebitis

  • Bullous formation. 

Yang et al (10) reported a case of erysipelas leading to bilateral lower limb and abdominal elephantiasis. Titou et al (11) carried out a retrospective study of 152 cases of erysipelas to evaluate the risk factors associated with local complications. They reported that prior antibiotics use and raised  ESR at the time of admission were independent risk factors for local complications of erysipelas. Local recurrence can occur in 5-20% of the patients. Local recurrence can lead to scarring.


Conclusion

Erysipelas is often seen in clinical practice. The diagnosis in most cases is clinical. The infection usually responds to antibiotics. The patients are usually treated in the outpatient department. Hospitalization is usually required if necrotizing infection is suspected, the patient is immunocompromised, the patient has poor adherence to medications and follow-up, and for those whose outpatient treatment has failed. Patients who undergo surgery for gangrene or an abscess may require long-term care. Medication compliance should be encouraged. The outcome for patients with erysipelas is good as long as they remain compliant with treatment.


References

  1. Rath E, Skrede S, Mylvaganam H, Bruun T. Aetiology and clinical features of facial cellulitis: a prospective study. Infect Dis (Lond). 2018 Jan;50(1):27-34.

  2. Karakonstantis S. Is coverage of S. aureus necessary in cellulitis/erysipelas? A literature review. Infection. 2020 Apr;48(2):183-191.

  3. Klotz C, Courjon J, Michelangeli C, Demonchy E, Ruimy R, Roger PM. Adherence to antibiotic guidelines for erysipelas or cellulitis is associated with a favorable outcome. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Apr;38(4):703-709.

  4. Galli L, Venturini E, Bassi A, Gattinara GC, Chiappini E, Defilippi C, Diociaiuti A, Esposito S, Garazzino S, Giannattasio A, Krzysztofiak A, Latorre S, Lo Vecchio A, Marchisio P, Montagnani C, Nicolini G, Novelli A, Rossolini GM, Tersigni C, Villani A, El Hachem M, Neri I., Italian Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. Italian Pediatric Dermatology Society. Common Community-acquired Bacterial Skin and Soft-tissue Infections in Children: an Intersociety Consensus on Impetigo, Abscess, and Cellulitis Treatment. Clin Ther. 2019 Mar;41(3):532-551.e17.

  5. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJ, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan SL, Montoya JG, Wade JC., Infectious Diseases Society of America. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014Duvanel T, Mérot Y, Harms M, Saurat JH. Prophylactic antibiotics in erysipelas. Lancet. 1985;1(8442):1401. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85 Jul 15;59(2):e10-52.

  6. Duvanel T, Mérot Y, Harms M, Saurat JH. Prophylactic antibiotics in erysipelas. Lancet. 1985;1(8442):1401. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85

  7. Dalal A, Eskin-Schwartz M, Mimouni D, et al. Interventions for the prevention of recurrent erysipelas and cellulitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2017(6). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009758.PUB2.

  8. Rob F, Hercogová J. Benzathine penicillin G once-every-3-week prophylaxis for recurrent erysipelas a retrospective study of 132 patients. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Feb;29(1):39-43.

  9. Blumberg G, Long B, Koyfman A. Clinical Mimics: An Emergency Medicine-Focused Review of Cellulitis Mimics. J Emerg Med. 2017 Oct;53(4):475-484.

  10. Yang YP, Huang WX, Zhong WX, Fu YM, He PA, Zhao G, Feng QM. Bilateral Lower Limb and Abdominal Elephantiasis Due to Erysipelas. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018 Apr 05;131(7):873-874.

  11. Titou H, Ebongo C, Bouati E, Boui M. Risk factors associated with local complications of erysipelas: a retrospective study of 152 cases. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;26:66.