introduction
Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is an inflammatory skin disease characterized by the presence
of ulcerative lesions with violaceous and indeterminate borders1. Usually, the clinical picture is rapidly progressive with the extension of necrotic
areas in a serpiginous configuration2. The etiology is unknown to this day but is believed to involve neutrophilic dysfunction
and immunological factors. It is often associated with inflammatory bowel diseases
such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, malignancies, arthritis, and hematological
diseases. In many cases, the clinical presentation can simulate a surgical wound infection3.
Brocq first described this pathology in 19163 and later named and better characterized by Brunsting in 19304,5. PG was so called by the author, believing that the pathology was gangrene caused
by streptococcal infection. The first case described in breast surgery was in 1988,
by Rand6, in a patient undergoing a reduction mammoplasty.
Pyoderma gangrenosum has an estimated incidence of 3 to 10 cases per million people/year7,8, with reports in the literature involving single cases or small series of patients.
National data from a retrospective analysis showed that, in Brazil, this index is
0.38 cases per 10,000 visits9, with women being the most affected, between the second and fifth decade of life10.
Histopathological findings include sterile dermal neutrophilia and lymphocytic vasculitis
but are nonspecific, both in optical microscopy and immunohistochemistry, with no
specific serological markers for closing a laboratory diagnosis; thus, the diagnosis
is clinical by exclusion11,12. In addition, PG is associated with some autoimmune diseases, such as ulcerative
colitis and rheumatoid arthritis13.
Pathergy is a phenomenon observed in patients diagnosed with PG and suggests an abnormal
response to trauma. This characteristic makes the treatment of this pathology more
difficult compared to other ulcerative diseases3,14. Until now, the literature suggests treatments based on corticosteroids, where despite
achieving disease control, we evidence irreparable skin lesions with an unwanted final
result15.
CASE REPORT
A 17-year-old female patient without any pathological or surgical history arrived
at the plastic surgery outpatient clinic complaining of breast hypertrophy that generated
back pain and social discomfort (Figure 1). The physical examination showed macromastia and grade I breast ptosis.
Figure 1 - Preoperative female patient of 17 years with mammary ptosis grade 2 of Regnault.
Figure 1 - Preoperative female patient of 17 years with mammary ptosis grade 2 of Regnault.
She underwent reduction mammoplasty with lower pedicle, surgery performed without
complications, being discharged after 24 hours of hospitalization in good general
condition. Antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin was performed during surgery, and
subsequently, 500mg cephalexin of 6/6 hours for five days was prescribed.
In the outpatient control on the seventh postoperative day (POD), a vesicle with hematic
content with perilesional erythema appeared in the lower outer quadrant of the right
lateral breast. In the left breast, the patient had a bleeding ulcer of approximately
4.5 cm in diameter in the lower external and lateral quadrant (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Seventh postoperative day. A: Right breast with a bladder of hemostatic content; B:
Left breast with a bleeding ulcer in progression.
Figure 2 - Seventh postoperative day. A: Right breast with a bladder of hemostatic content; B:
Left breast with a bleeding ulcer in progression.
A diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosum was suspected, for which a biopsy of the wound
was performed with collection and culture material. Subsequently, a dressing was performed
with non-adherent gauze and blood was collected for complete blood count, C-reactive
protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Then, for ten days, oral treatment with
40mg/day prednisolone plus amoxicillin with clavulanate 875+125mg 12/12h.
Laboratory test results showed 11,270 leukocytes/µL with 9,650 neutrophils/µL (85%),
94mm ESR and PCR 2.28mm/dL. The histopathological report of the lesion reported: skin
fragment on the edge of an ulcerated lesion showing acute and chronic inflammatory
infiltrate in the dermis, and subcutaneous cell tissue with fibrinoid necrosis of
the wall of small vessels related to the ulcer area. Absence of microorganisms to
special stains by PAS and Ziehl-Neelsen. Consider pyoderma gangrenosum among diagnoses.
At 18° DPO, ulcerated lesions still appeared to have a slow progression, showing a
slight increase in the size of the left breast ulcer that even compromised the vertical
scar. Daily sessions of hyperbaric therapy with a duration of 90 minutes associated
with nutritional support with protein supplement: Cubitan® (Vital Products Importação e Exportação Ltda., Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) 1
vial per day and glutamine 10 grams per day (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Eighteenth postoperative day. A: Right breast with vesicles of delimited hemostatic content; B: Left breast with ulcer of 5cm in diameter.
Figure 3 - Eighteenth postoperative day. A: Right breast with vesicles of delimited hemostatic content; B: Left breast with ulcer of 5cm in diameter.
From the 20th DPO, daily dressings were started with epidermal growth factor at 3%,
rosehip oil 5% and allantoin 1% covered with non-adherent gauze.
On the 25th POD, it was possible to evidence a favorable evolution of the wounds due
to an arrest in their extension associated with an apparent attempt to epithelialize
the wound edges (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Twenty-fifth postoperative day showing stability in the progression of ulcers. A: Breast right; B: Mama left.
Figure 4 - Twenty-fifth postoperative day showing stability in the progression of ulcers. A: Breast right; B: Mama left.
A subdermal suture was performed on the 33rd POD with nylon 3.0 to approximate the
edges of the lesion without showing any pathergic reaction due to the manipulation
of the wound. One week later, the skin was sutured with a 5.0 nylon suture associated
with simple stitches. According to the healing of the patient’s skin, the stitches
were gradually removed (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - A and B: 33° DPO evidencing the right breast aspect in an adequate epithelialization process
and hot flushing of the edges of the left breast lesion; C and D: 40° DPO, right breast in adequate epithelialization process and skin suture performed
in the left breast; E and F: Appearance of the right and left breasts in the 47th DPO.
Figure 5 - A and B: 33° DPO evidencing the right breast aspect in an adequate epithelialization process
and hot flushing of the edges of the left breast lesion; C and D: 40° DPO, right breast in adequate epithelialization process and skin suture performed
in the left breast; E and F: Appearance of the right and left breasts in the 47th DPO.
RESULT
The patient, in this case, 60 days after surgery, evolved with good healing of the
extensive lesions, and the result of mammoplasty without sequelae from PG was preserved
(Figure 6). When contacted by the team, the patient was satisfied with the result of mammoplasty,
with three years of postoperative segment from the surgical procedure.
Figure 6 - A: Preoperative reduction mammoplasty with pedicle; B: Postoperative 60 days after PG control.
Figure 6 - A: Preoperative reduction mammoplasty with pedicle; B: Postoperative 60 days after PG control.
DISCUSSION
Post-surgical pyoderma gangrenosum is a skin disease developed soon after surgery,
mimetizing a surgical wound infection that does not respond to antibiotic treatment.
More and more cases are reported in the literature so that it represents a pathology
that every plastic surgeon must know to perform an adequate differential diagnosis16,17. In a recent review in the national literature, in the Brazilian Journal of Plastic
Surgery, six articles have been published since 201518-23 and 10 since 20069,14,24,25, being fundamental the suspicion of PG from pathognomonic lesions in surgeries with
catastrophic and recent evolutions.
Early diagnosis is essential to prevent the progression of ulcerative lesions and
to carry out appropriate treatment. In the literature, the treatment indicated in
most cases and based on corticosteroids associated or not with cyclosporine1,26. In addition, the use of methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, and immunoglobulin
has been described in patients who have not responded to steroid treatment15,27. In the patient in the case described, a favorable outcome of this dreaded pathology,
which has a sudden and aggressive onset, was obtained due to clinical suspicion and
early treatment.
Due to the characteristic pathergy of this disease, the tendency is not to perform
surgical debridement and manipulate the wounds. Some authors describe the performance
of grafts and flaps once the disease is controlled to close the bloody area13. However, most of the aesthetic results found in the literature are poor. The patient
in question had no history of previous injury, either from the PG or the pathergy
phenomenon. No report of previous surgery or major trauma. Having good evolution with
the interventions of approximation suture and associated with suturing the wound in
planes, without debridement of the region.
In the patient of the case, good aesthetic results were obtained due to a diagnosis
and early corticosteroid therapy that limited the extent of the ulcerated region.
Later, with nutritional support, hyperbaric therapy and daily dressings controlled
the disease, promoting wound epithelialization. Finally, it was possible to perform
a wound closure by stages, leaving minimal scars on the breasts.
CONCLUSION
Post-surgical pyoderma gangrenosum is a disease that must be known by the plastic
surgeon to be properly treated and ensure good aesthetic results for patients. Diagnostic
suspicion is made when the patient presents ulcerative lesions in the early postoperative
period, usually multiple, bilateral, and sparing the areola-papillary complex.
It is possible to achieve control of the disease with the stabilization of the disease
with corticosteroid therapy associated with nutritional support, hyperbaric therapy,
and daily dressings.
Once the disease is controlled, it is possible to manipulate the affected areas by
achieving a late closure of the ulcers and adequate healing.
REFERENCES
1. Larcher L, Schwaiger K, Eisendle K, et al. Aesthetic breast augmentation mastopexy
followed by postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum (PSPG): clinic, treatment, and review
of the literature. Aesth Plast Surg. 2015;39:506-13.
2. Abtahi-naeini B, Bagheri F, Pourazizi M, Forozeshfard M, Saffaei A. Unusual cause
of breast wound: postoperative pyoderma gangrenosum. Int Wound J. 2017;14:285-7.
3. Brocq L. Nouvelle contribution a l’etude du phagedenisme geometrique. Ann Dermatol
Syph 1916; 6: 1-39.
4. .Brunsting LA, Goeckerman WH, O´Leary PA. Pyoderma (ecthyma) gangrenosum: clinical
and experimental observations in five cases occurring in adults. Arch Dermatol Syph
1930; 22: 655-80.
5. Bhat RM. Pyoderma gangrenosum: an update. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2012;3:7-13.
6. Rand RP, Brown GL, Bostwick J. Pyoderma gangrenosum and progressive cutaneous ulceration.
Ann Plast Surg. 1988;20:280Y284.
7. Ahronowitz I, Harp J, Shinkai K. Etiology and management of pyoderma gangrenosum:
a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2012;13(3):191- 211.
8. Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP. Pyoderma gangrenosum. Dermatology.2003;1:415-8.
9. Meyer TN. Pioderma gangrenoso: grave e mal conhecida complicação da cicatrização.
Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2006;21(2):120-4.
10. Suárez-Pérez JA, Herrera-Acosta E, López-Navarro N, Vilchez-Márquez F, Prieto JD,
Bosch RJ, et al. Pioderma gangrenoso: presentación de 15 casos y revisión de la literatura.
Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2012;103(2):120-6.
11. Souza CS, Chiossi MPV, Takada MH, Foss NT, Roselino AMF. Pioderma gangrenoso: casuística
e revisão de aspectos clínico-laboratoriais e terapêuticos. An Bras Dermatol. 1999;74(5):465-72.
12. Konopha CL, Padulla GA, Ortiz MP, Beck AK, Bitencourt MR, Dalcin DC. Pioderma gangrenoso:
um artigo de revisão. J Vasc Bras. 2013;12(1):25-33.
13. Tuffaha S, Sarhane K, Mundinger G, Pyoderma gangrenosum after breast surgery: diagnostic
pearls and treatment recommendations based on a systematic literature review. Ann
Plast Surg. 2016;77:e39Ye44.
14. Coltro PS, Valler CS, Almeida PCC, Gomez DS, Ferreira MC. O Papel da Patergia no Pioderma
Gangrenoso em Áreas Doadoras de Enxertos Cutâneos: Relato de Caso. Rev. Bras. Cir.
Plást.2006;21(4):231-235.
15. Grillo MA, Cavalheiro TT, Mulazani MS, et al. Postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum complicating
reduction mammaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:1347-52.
16. Segaran A, Mohammad M, Sterling JC, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum arising in a breast
reduction scar: seven years post-procedure. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:e370-e2.
17. Duval A, Boissel N, Servant JM, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum of the breast: a diagnosis
not to be missed. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:e17-e20.
18. Sempértegui A, Vasquez ISV, Fernandes Neto ALRG, Santos LML, Alvarenga BCF, Ueda WJ,
et al. Pioderma gangrenoso após quadrantectomia de mama com radioterapia intraoperatória:
relato de caso. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2015;30(1):138-42.
19. Rosseto M, Costa SC, Narváez PLV, Nakagawa CM, Costa GO. Pioderma gangrenoso em abdominoplastia:
relato de caso. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2015;30(4):654-7.
20. Oliveira FFG, Fernandes M, Giacoia AMN, Saldanha O, Menegazzo MR, Cação EG, et al.
Pioderma gangrenoso: um desafio para o cirurgião plástico. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2018;33(3):414-8.
21. Gaspar-Junior CJ, Gaspar CJ. Pioderma gangrenoso em pós-operatório de mamoplastia
redutora: relato de caso. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2018;33(4):590-4.
22. Yamaki IN, Boechat CJ, Rizzo RC, Amorim SS, Andrade GF, Reis AP. Pioderma gangrenoso
após mamoplastia redutora: desafios diagnóstico e terapêutico. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2019;34(4):567-70.
23. Rezende AV, Macedo JL, Rosa SC, Yamamoto HG, Fioravante TGR, Garcia JEF, et al. Pioderma
gangrenoso em dorso de mão pós-trauma. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2020;35(1):121-8.
24. Furtado JG, Furtado GB. Pioderma gangrenoso em mastoplastia e abdominoplastia. Rev
Bras Cir Plást. 2010;25(4):725-7.
25. Soares JM, Rinaldi AE, Taffo E, Alves DG, Cutait RCC, Estrada EOD. Pioderma gangrenoso
pós-mamoplastia redutora: relato de caso e discussão. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2013;28(3):511-4.
26. Juhász ML, Maman DY, Levin JM, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum of the breast in a patient
with a history of silicone augmentation mastopexy and suction-assisted lipectomy of
the trunk. JAAD Case Rep. 2015;1:329-32.
27. Poucke SV, Jorens PG, Peeters R, Jacobs W, Beeck BO, Lambert J, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum:
a challenging complication of bilateral mastopexy. Int Wound J. 2004;1:207-13.
1. Iguaçu University, Hospital Niterói D’Or, Plastic Surgery, Niterói, RJ, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Gisela Hobson Pontes Avenida Epitácio Pessoa, 846, Ipanema, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Zip Code 22410-090
E-mail: giselapontes@uol.com.br
Article received: April 05, 2020.
Article accepted: April 23, 2021.
Conflicts of interest: none.