Procedural dermatology and its unmet need.

Procedural dermatology includes invasive conventional dermatologic surgeries which involve significant use of knife and suture, minimally invasive procedures and device-based procedures. Device-based procedures are the easiest to learn and are less prone to human errors due to automation but can lead to monotony, while conventional surgeries require significant skill, craftsmanship and interest. There has been a recent shift in the approach to procedural dermatology as a therapeutic option with complementary and combination models replacing the conventional hierarchical model in which procedures were last in the step-ladder approach. The demand for both conventional dermatologic surgeries and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures is increasing. Unfortunately, this demand has not been met with adequate supply. Consequently, the number of trained professionals with expertise in these procedures is very limited; they are far outnumbered by unqualified practitioners. A limited number of dermatologic surgeons practicing conventional surgeries has resulted in huge waiting lists for vitiligo surgeries, inappropriate excisions for skin cancers and poor cosmetic outcomes of excisions without proper knowledge of flaps and grafts. Increasingly procedures are being performed by inadequately trained personnel, resulting in complications. There is also an absence of good quality research on the subject of procedural dermatology, which has resulted in a lack of standardisation of various procedures and knowledge about the efficacy of various drug-procedure and procedure-procedure combinations. An increasing variety of gimmicky but costly procedures are being offered to the public without much evidence of efficacy. Individual institutional and broad policy directives are needed to address these issues. Special emphasis is required on formal hands-on procedural dermatology training during residency and beyond it.

Laboratory detection of bacterial pathogens and clinical and laboratory response of syndromic management in patients with cervical discharge: A retrospective study.

Background Cervical discharge as part of cervicitis and pelvic inflammatory disease is a cause of significant morbidity in sexually active women worldwide. Non-gonococcal and non- chlamydial bacterial pathogens are becoming more prevalent. Aims This study aims to determine bacterial pathogens causing cervical discharge using culture and/or polymerase chain reaction and assess the clinical and laboratory response to the conventional syndromic kit regimen established by the World Health Organisation. Methods A retrospective review of records of women with cervical discharge over one year period. Culture and/or polymerase chain reaction results of endocervical swabs of various bacterial pathogens at baseline and after four weeks of treatment with syndromic kit regimen were recorded. Results A total of 70 case records were reviewed for clinical details, out of which results of bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction were available for 67 cases. Infectious aetiology was found in 30 (44.7%) patients with Ureaplasma species being the most common organism isolated on culture (18, 26.8%) and polymerase chain reaction (25, 37.3%), respectively. Polymerase chain reaction for Chlamydia trachomatis and Mycoplasma hominis was positive in ten (14.9%) and four (6%) cases, respectively. None of the patients showed positive culture for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Coinfection was seen in eight (11.9%) patients with the majority showing Chlamydia trachomatis and Ureaplasma spp. coinfection (five patients). Forty one cases (58.5%) received tab. cefixime 400 mg and tab. azithromycin one gram stat (kit 1), while 29 cases (43.3%) received tab. cefixime 400 mg stat, tab. metronidazole 400 mg and cap. doxycycline 100 mg, both twice daily for 14 days (kit 6). Minimal to no clinical improvement with treatment was seen in 14 out of 32 cases (44%) at the end of four weeks with the conventional kit regimen. Post-treatment culture and/or polymerase chain reaction were positive in nine out of 28 cases (32.1%) with Ureaplasma spp. being the most common. Limitations Retrospective study design, small sample size and fewer cases with follow-up data were the main limitations. Conclusion Ureaplasma spp. was the most common infectious cause of cervical discharge in our patients. Treatment given as part of syndromic management led to a clinical and microbiological response in around half and two-third cases, respectively.

A pilot study to determine Neisseria gonorrhoeae-Chlamydia trachomatis coinfection rates in symptomatic patients attending STI Clinics, New Delhi, India.

BACKGROUND: Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis are the two most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infections. For over two decades, treatment guidelines have recommended empirical co-treatment for N.gonorrhoeae and C.trachomatis as symptoms overlap and co-infection is common. Studies from India estimating the same are limited and mostly based on conventional techniques. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of N.gonorrhoeae and C.trachomatis coinfection using nucleic acid amplification tests. Further, we assessed the utility of pus cell estimation in Gram stained smears as a screening tool for inclusion of samples for molecular diagnosis. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted at two tertiary care hospitals; 100 patients (55 females and 45 males) with genitourinary discharge attending STI clinics were recruited, and endocervical or urethral swabs were collected. PCRs for N.gonorrhoeae and C.trachomatis were put up. In addition, microscopy and culture for gonococcus was performed followed by antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 16 software. RESULTS: N.gonorrhoeae infection was more common than C.trachomatis. A total of 14 patients were positive by PCR (9 males and 5 females) for gonococcus. However, culture was positive only in 8 male patients. PCR for C.trachomatis was positive in 9 (4 males and 5 females) and the co-infection rate was 5%. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of pus cell estimation was 100% for males and 64% and 94.6% respectively for females. All isolates were susceptible to extended spectrum cephalosporins and azithromycin. LIMITATION: The sample size of the study was small. CONCLUSION: Frequency of N.gonorrhoeae/C.trachomatis coinfection in symptomatic STI patients is low. Coinfection is considerably overestimated and necessary confirmation of etiological diagnosis could reduce widespread empirical administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics.