Abstract
Significance: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare debilitating autoinflammatory ulcerative skin disease. No gold standard has been established for the treatment of PG. The role of surgical interventions and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was discussed controversially until recently as these procedures might pose a trigger to further aggravate the condition.
Recent Advances: Recent advances confirm the paradigm change that a surgical approach of PG with split thickness skin grafting (STSG) secured by NPWT is a safe and valuable treatment if performed under adequate immunosuppression. We elaborate this on the hand of a broad literature search retrieving 101 relevant articles describing 138 patients complemented with our personal experience on 23 patients, including 2 patients treated with a porcine xenodressing.
Critical Issues: A wide range of surgical approaches have been reported, including xenografts. Treatment was finally successful in 86%, including the xenotransplant cases. Ten percent improved and failures were mainly reported without immunosuppression. Despite halting the inflammatory process, NPWT alone, without skin grafting, does not much accelerate healing time. The best surgical approach appears to be STSG fixed with NPWT as this leads to higher skin graft take. There remains the problem of the chronic nature of PG and the recurrence after tapering of immunosuppression or trauma; therefore, a sustained immunosuppressive treatment is suggested.
Future Directions: While surgical treatment is supported by the published data, the exact immunosuppression is still evolving. Due to deeper insights into pathogenesis and growing clinical reports, a broader utilization of biologic treatments and a shift from tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha to interleukin (IL)-12/23 or IL-23 antibodies alone are predictable, as IL-12/23 antibodies show good clinical responses with fewer side effects. The positive results with porcine xenodressings might be due to immunological effects of the xenomaterial; they appear promising, but are preliminary and should be confirmed in a larger patient collective.
Keywords: pyoderma gangrenosum, skin graft, negative pressure wound therapy, xenotransplant, ustekinumab, infliximab

Klaus Eisendle, MD, MSc, PhD, MBA
Scope and Significance
Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare autoinflammatory disease, characterized by uncontrolled activation of neutrophil granulocytes leading to very painful growing skin ulcerations. Treatment is complex, necessitating time-intensive wound dressings, systemic treatments, and surgical interventions. Mortality is augmented in PG patients and care is long and costly. This review focuses on the surgical and systemic management of patients with PG. A broad search of the PubMed, Medline, EBSCO Biomedical Reference Collection, and Cochrane databases was performed and a total of 101 relevant articles describing 138 patients could be retrieved and complemented with our personal experience of 23 patients.
Translational Relevance
This work is relevant to researchers studying wound healing, skin immunology, and autoinflammatory diseases, as well as scientists involved in the development and new use of biologic and immunosuppressive treatments.
Clinical Relevance
All published different surgical approaches, including xenotransplants, are critically discussed on the experience on 161 treated patients. An immunosuppressive treatment ladder with newer developments in the use of anti-interleukin (IL)-12/23 antibodies, as well as possible adjuvant approaches are proposed. This is directly relevant to all clinicians, wound specialists, and nurses caring for PG patients.
Background
PG, first described by Brunsting et al. in 1930,1 is a rare inflammatory ulcerative skin disease belonging to the neutrophil dermatoses, which are characterized by an accumulation of neutrophils in the skin.2 An incidence of 0.3–1.0/100,000 has been reported with a female predominance ranging from 55% to 59%. The mean age at diagnosis ranges from 48 to 58 years,3–5 and the mortality of patients suffering from PG is three times higher compared with the general population.3,6 The most common clinical presentation of PG is a pustule that progresses to a painful ulcer with violaceous undermined borders and a purulent base. Bullous, vegetative, peristomal, and extracutaneous forms of PG may also be seen.
Pathogenesis is unknown and poorly understood; however, there is strong evidence to suggest that PG has an immunologic etiology. Recently, neutrophil dermatoses have been added to the group of autoinflammatory diseases.7,8 Successful treatment requires the reduction of the inflammation; indeed, the secretion of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) by keratinocytes and clonally expanded T cells with subsequent overexpression of IL-8, a strong chemotactic factor for neutrophils, and other cytokines, including IL-1, IL-6, IL-17, and IL-23, has been demonstrated to contribute to the genesis of PG.9–13 Furthermore, the upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) expression, in particular MMP 9 and 10, might also contribute to poor wound healing14,15 and Wilkes et al. could show that the resolution of inflammation was one predictor for the eventual healing of PG.16
The clinical course of PG is unpredictable; it may stop spontaneously and stay inactive for months or years or can progress and get worse after traumas, after surgical interventions, or even without any triggers.17 In 25–50% of patients, the disease is idiopathic; in the remaining cases, an underlying systemic disease can be found,17 such as inflammatory bowel disease (9–34%),3,18 rheumatoid arthritis (9–11%), solid neoplasms (9–33%), or hematological disorders, including monoclonal gammopathy.3–8,19–21 Recently, also, an association with endocrine diseases like diabetes mellitus, found in 29%, or hypothyroidism, found in 7% of patients, has been reported.3
It is essential to rule out other causes of cutaneous ulcerations, as misdiagnosis can lead to serious complications and PG remains a diagnosis by exclusion.22,23 A helpful diagnostic criterion is the pathergy phenomenon. Trigger factors were found in 30% of patients, mostly after surgical interventions or minor trauma.20–23 Rapid progressive ulcerations and pain are present in the majority of PG cases.21 Special attention must be given to patients with hypertension, especially with diabetes, as Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcer has a very similar clinical presentation and a large enough wedge biopsy should be performed to exclude ischemic subcutaneous arteriolosclerosis.24,25
Systemic treatment mainly consists of corticosteroids (CS; 0.5–2 mg/kg/day),4,20 commonly with adjunctive immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatments such as cyclosporine (3–6 mg/kg daily),5,26,27 mycophenolate mofetil (up to 2,000 mg daily),5,26,28 methotrexate (12.5–22.5 mg/weekly),26,29 azathioprine (25–150 mg daily),30,31 dapsone (50–300 mg daily),32–35 thalidomide (200–400 mg daily),36–39 intravenous immunoglobulins,40,41 and biologics such as TNF-alpha inhibitors infliximab,42 adalimumab,43–45 and etanercept46–48 or ustekinumab, an anti-IL 12/23 antibody.49,50 The adverse effects of those drugs and/or the possible inadequate clinical response can limit their use in some patients, emphasizing the role of local wound management.51,52 Local treatment consists in the application of wound dressings and topical or intralesional CS or tacrolimus.52,53
The role of surgical interventions such as split thickness skin grafting (STSG) and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is controversially discussed in the literature as these procedures might pose a trigger and further aggravate the condition, especially if performed without immunosuppression.54 Indeed, acute postoperative PG is a feared complication after surgery and more than 200 cases have been described in the literature so far.55 In this study, we report the largest review of surgical treatment of PG and our personal experience in the surgical management of PG under adequate immunosuppression in 23 patients, including 2 cases successfully treated with porcine xenografts (EZ-Derm®), a new potentially promising treatment option.
Discussion of Findings and Relevant Literature
Comprehensive review
A broad search of the PubMed, Medline, EBSCO Biomedical Reference Collection, and Cochrane databases was performed in December 2019 with the terms “PG skin graft,” “PG split thickness skin graft,” “PG skin transplantation,” “PG negative pressure wound therapy,” and “PG vacuum therapy,” and with the Medical Search Help (MeSH) Terms “PG” and “skin grafting.” Two hundred and seventeen articles published between 1967 and 2020 were identified. Reviews not reporting patients, reports without skin grafting or without NPWT, reports where NPWT or STSG were not used for treatment of PG, and double publications were excluded. The titles and abstracts were screened individually; if the articles seemed relevant or lacked adequate data in the abstract to indicate their relevance, the full-text articles were obtained and fully analyzed. Study references were cross-checked and screened manually to identify potential citations not captured by the initial database search. A total of 101 articles could be included in the analysis: number of patients, age, gender, side of PG, procedural intervention (NPWT, skin grafts, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), immunosuppression performed, outcome, and reported recurrences were noted and are reported in Table 1.
Table 1.
All reports published in the literature so far on surgical treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with skin graft or negative wound pressure therapy
| Publication No. | Author, Year (References) | Patients | Age, Sex | Localization | Procedural Interventions | Systemic Treatment | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ridenhour and Stephenson (1968)91 | 1 | 62, M | Left elbow, both lower legs | STSG | CS, topical aqueous silver nitrate | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 2 | McGarity and Barnett (1977)115 | 1 | 53, F | Abdominal wall | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 3 | Davis et al. (1987)116 | 4 | 64, M; 62, F; 17, F; 22, F | Legs (lower) 4, elbow 1 | STSG (4), HBO (4) | CS (4), in 3 CS were tapered under HBO and inactive PG grafted without | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 4 | Gérard et al. (1988)117 | 1 | 41, M | Left hand | STSG | CS, plasma exchange | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 5 | Dean et al. (1991)118 | 1 | 71, F | Leg (ankle) | Cultured epithelial autografts | CS | Successful, healed without recurrence |
| 6 | Límová and Mauro (1994)119 | 1 | 44, F | Leg (dorsal food) | Cultured keratinocyte autografts | CS systemic+intralesional | 95% Graft take, healed without recurrence |
| 7 | Maier et al. (1995)120 | 1 | 34, F | Leg | STSG | CS, CyA | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 8 | Vereecken et al. (1997)121 | 1 | 87, F | Leg (right tibia) | STSG | Lymecycline, topical benzoyl peroxide | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 9 | Michel et al. (1998)122 | 1 | 68, F | Leg (calves) | STSG | CS, CyA, MMF | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 10 | Havlik et al. (1998)123 | 1 | 15, F | Breast | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 11 | Cliff et al. (1999)92 | 4 | 66, M; 36, F; 28, F; 68, F | Legs (lower) 2, abdomen, tight left | STSG (4) | One without immunosuppression (unknown PG), CS (3) | One failed with exacerbation (Patient without immunosuppression), three healed with no recurrence |
| 12 | Sotillo-Gago et al. (1999)124 | 1 | 43, F | Breast (bilateral) | STSG without IS | No IS then CS+CyA | STSG failed without IS, healed under immunosuppression |
| 13 | Rozen et al. (2001)113 | 3 | 61, F; 73, F; 46, M | Legs (all lower) | STSG (3), rectus abdominis flap (1) | CS (3)+AZA/dapsone/Mesalamine 1; +AZA/MMF/Tacrolimus 1 | Successful graft in all, one minor recurrence after 3 months managed conservatively |
| 14 | Kaddoura and Amm (2001)112 | 3 | 13, F; 15, M; 56, M | Legs (right lower leg four ulcers, left lower leg two ulcers) | STSG (3) | CS (3) | Successful in all, one small recurrence managed conservatively with systemic CS |
| 15 | de Imus et al. (2001)125 | 1 | 26, F | Leg | Allogeneic cultured human skin equivalent (Graftiskin) | CS, CyA | Successful, healed without recurrence |
| 16 | Gilmour and Stewart (2001)126 | 1 | 16, M | Leg | Cultured epidermis unsuccessful, followed by NPWT and delayed STSG | CS, CyA, MMF | Healed after 7 months, no recurrence after 10 months |
| 17 | Lifchez and Larson (2002)127 | 1 | 40, F | Breasts | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 18 | Gulyas and Kimble (2003)128 | 1 | 57, F | Breast | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 19 | Poucke et al. (2004)129 | 1 | 41, F | Breast | Integra® | CS | Healed without recurrence |
| 20 | Horner et al. (2004)130 | 1 | 21, F | Breast | NPWT, then STSG | First no IS, then CS+CyA | Failed without IS, secondary healing under immunosuppression |
| 21 | Zakhireh et al. (2004)131 | 3 | 64, F; 60, F; 30, F | Legs (all lower) | STSG (3) | CS (3) with CyA (2) one with additional MTX | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 22 | Geller and Longton (2005)101 | 1 | 82, F | Leg (lower) | NPWT | CS | Halted the inflammatory process, healing after 7 months |
| 23 | Niezgoda et al. (2006)132 | 1 | 46, M | Leg (left, tibia) | NPWT, STSG, HBO | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 24 | Keskin et al. (2006)133 | 1 | 9, M | Legs (lower) | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 25 | Ghersi et al. (2007)134 | 1 | 57, F | Leg (lower left) controlled and slow-healing PG | NPWT | None, previous CS, IVIG, MMF, cyclophosphamide | Healed without recurrence after 6 weeks |
| 26 | Zutt et al. (2007)85 | 1 | 50, F | Legs (right: lower leg and dorsal foot) | NPWT and STSG | CS, AZA, CyA, dapsone, MMF, Iloprost | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 27 | Hoff et al. (2008)135 | 1 | 53, M | Both lower legs | STSG | CS, topical tacrolimus | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 28 | Kim et al. (2008)136 | 1 | 47, F | Legs (left calf) | STSG | CS, CyA | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 29 | Toyozawa et al. (2008)137 | 1 | 69, F | Legs | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 30 | Descheemaeker et al. (2008)138 | 1 | 31, F | Breast | NPWT and STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 31 | Procianoy et al. (2009)139 | 1 | 19, F | Eyelid | FTSG | CS, dapsone | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 32 | Rajapakse et al. (2010)140 | 1 | 50, F | Breasts | NPWT | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 33 | Wollina et al. (2000)141 | 1 | 50, F | Both lower legs | Hyaluronic acid derivate (Hyalogran) followed by grafting of autologous cultured keratinocytes | CS, MMF | One ulcer healed, second ulcer 60%; recurred shortly thereafter |
| 34 | Rietjens et al. (2010)142 | 1 | 37, F | Breast | FTSG | CS | Successful graft |
| 35 | Schintler et al. (2010)143 | 1 | 45, F | Breasts | NPWT (instill) and free flap | CS, CyA, IVIG | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 36 | Lamet et al. (2010)144 | 1 | 44, F | Legs | STSG | CS | Graft at first successful, then relapsed |
| 37 | Schoemann and Zenn (2010)145 | 1 | 50, F | Abdomen | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 38 | Melson et al. (2010)114 | 1 | 41, F | Eyelids | FTSG | CS | Successful, recurred after 6 months |
| 39 | Kikuchi et al. (2010)146 | 1 | 28, F | Abdomen | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 40 | Goshtasby et al. (2010)147 | 1 | 49, F | Breasts | Integra, STSG | CS, infliximab, MTX | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 41 | Andreev (2011)148 | 1 | 30, F | Legs | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 42 | Hafner et al. (2006)149 | 1 | 64, F | Lower Leg | Cultured autologous epidermis | CS, CyA, AZA | Successful, but recurred within 6 weeks |
| 43 | Mandal et al. (2006)150 | 3 | 72, F; 17, M; 45, F | Leg (right knee) 2, thighs and groin 1 | NPWT (3) and STSG (2) and gastrocnemius muscle flap (1) | CS (3), and CyA (1) | Successful flap (1), partial rejection at the STSG borders healed conservatively (1), improvement with NPWT healed within 6 months; no recurrences |
| 44 | Lambropoulos et al. (2011)96 | 1 | 13, F | Leg (left ankle) and left arm | NPWT, cultured autologous keratinocytes, (Epicel®) | CS, CyA | 90% Graft take, no complete healing after 6 months |
| 45 | Hill et al. (2011)151 | 1 | 63, F | Leg (after knee arthroplasty) | NPWT, muscle flap with STSG, HBO | First none, CS after diagnosis | NPWT ineffective without immunosuppression, flap and graft failure secondary to sepsis, prolonged course healed eventually with HBO, no recurrence |
| 46 | Gámiz and Nielsen (2011)152 | 1 | 58, F | Both legs | NPWT and STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 47a | Saracino et al. (2011)153 | 2 | Not specified (series of 26 mean age 61.5, 65% F) | Legs | Pinch graft (1), STSG (1) | CS (2) | Successful graft, no recurrence |
| 48 | Fraccalvieri et al. (2014)154 | 4 | 53, M; 59, F; 72, F; 45, F | Legs (lower) 3, breasts 1 | NPWT (4) | CS (4), CyA (4), Dapsone (1), IGIV (1), cyclophosphamide (1) | Marked pain reduction, good granulation tissue, no healing reported |
| 49 | Sick et al. (2012)2 | 3 | 62, F; 70, F; 44, M | Legs (all) | STSG (3) and NPWT (1) | CS/AZA (1), CS/CyA (1), MMF/IVIG (1), topical tacrolimus and clobetasol (3) | Successful/one recurrence at a different location |
| 50 | Neiderer et al. (2012)155 | 1 | 76, M | Leg (anterior left) | NPWT, bioengineered skin substitute generated from neonatal foreskin (Apligraf®) | CS | Healed within 6 weeks |
| 51 | Kolios et al. (2012)88 | 1 | 47, F | Breasts | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 52 | Carrasco Cubero et al. (2012)156 | 1 | 33, M | Leg (right ankle) | STSG | CS, infliximab | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 53 | Das et al. (2012)157 | 1 | 53, F | Legs, right groin | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 54 | Andrisani et al. (2013)158 | 1 | 76, M | Left breast | STSG | CS, infliximab | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 55 | Araújo et al. (2013)159 | 1 | 50, M | Leg (left) | STSG, HBO | CS, AZA | Over 90% graft take, healed without recurrence |
| 56 | Cabalag et al. (2015)60 | 3 | Not specified (series of 29, 59% F, mean age 71) | Legs | STSG (3) with HBO (2) | CS (3), CyA (1) | Successful graft (3), healed (1), improved (2), died due to sepsis: perforated sigmoid diverticular abscess (1) |
| 57 | Mowlds et al. (2013)160 | 1 | 61, F | Right hand | STSG and NPWT and HBO | Local acetic acid, no immunosuppression (PG diagnosed later) | Healed, second PG at the left hand |
| 58 | Lee et al. (2013)161 | 1 | 47, F | Legs (left foot) | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 59a | Mooij et al. (2013)162 | 2 | Not specified (series of 6 mean age 49, 83% F) | Legs (6) | STSG (2) | CS (2), infliximab (2) | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 60 | Leonard and Khan (2013)163 | 1 | 47, F | Breast | NWPT+STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 61 | Ratnagobal and Sinha (2013)164 | 1 | 60, F | Leg and food | STSG+HBO | Infliximab | Successful graft, recurrence after 3 months (infection), further STSG failed, primary healing with no recurrence |
| 62 | Fakhar et al. (2013)165 | 1 | 41, F | Breasts (PG after III° burn) | STSG, NPWT after breast amputation | CS | Not successful, eventually healed under prednisolone, MMF, and adalimumab |
| 63 | Aydin et al. (2015)166 | 1 | 32, F | Abdomen (after caesarian delivery) | NPWT and STSG | CS, AZA | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 64 | Ye and Ye (2014)167 | 2 | 51, F; 89, F | Lower leg (1); abdomen, left tights, sacral (1) | STSG (2), primary closure sacral | CS (2), MMF (1) | >90% Graft take, healed without recurrence |
| 65a | Stair-Buchmann et al. (2015)90 | 6 | Not specified (series of 7: 29% F, mean age 65) | Legs (lower) 6 | NPWT and STSG (4), STSG (1), NPWT (1) | CS (6), plus Dapsone (1), infliximab (1) | Three closed (NPWT and STSG 1, STSG 1), one died due to sepsis (NPWT and STSG), two lost to follow-up |
| 66 | Richmond et al. (2014)168 | 5 | 40, F; 50, M; 50, F; 30, F; 80, M | Legs (lower 4, upper 1) | Epidermal grafting with suction blister–harvesting system 5 (Cellutome) | CS (3) with CyA (1); CyA (2) with MMF (1) | All successful, three healed within 3 months, two marked ulcer size reduction |
| 67 | Tay et al. (2014)169 | 1 | 58, F | Legs (lower) | STSG | Sulfasalazine, topical betamethasone | Successful, healed within 3 months |
| 68 | Novo-Torres et al. (2015)170 | 2 | 23, F; 45, F | Leg (lower) (2) | CS+CyA+infliximab (1), no systemic therapy (1) | NWPT+STSG+Integra (2) | Successful, healed within 3 months (1), failed (1) in patient with no immunosuppressive treatment |
| 69 | Snyder et al. (2015)171 | 1 | 77, F | Leg (lower) | NWPT+allograft | CS, Dapsone, MMF | Successful |
| 70 | Cicuto et al. (2015)172 | 1 | 62, F | Breast | NWPT+skin graft (1) | CS | Successful, healed without recurrence |
| 71 | Soncini et al. (2016)173 | 1 | 19, F | Breast bilateral | NWPT | CS | Successful, healed within 4 months |
| 72 | Leitsch et al. (2016)174 | 1 | 54, M | Hand and forearm | STSG+NPWT | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 73 | Zaugg et al. (2016)175 | 1 | 65, F | Leg (lower) | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 74 | Patel et al. (2017)176 | 1 | 41, F | Breast | First cadaveric allograft, then Integra and STSG | CS+CyA+IVIG | Failed, healed by secondary intention |
| 75 | Hradil et al. (2017)177 | 1 | 72, M | Arm | STSG | CS | Successful graft |
| 76 | Yamaguchi et al. (2018)178 | 2 | 48, M; 51, F | Leg (lower) 2 | NWPT (2) | CS (2)+CyA (1) | Successful, marked improvement within 1 month |
| 77 | Soro-García et al. (2017)179 | 1 | 35, F | Parasternal | NWPT | CS | Healed within 6 months |
| 78 | Domej et al. (2017)180 | 1 | 75, F | Shoulder | NWPT | CS | Improved |
| 79 | Zelones and Nigriny (2017)104 | 1 | 37, F | Abdomen | NWPT | First no treatment, then CS, MMF, infliximab | Worsening without IS, then healed within 5 months |
| 80 | Tanini et al. (2017)181 | 1 | 39, F | Breast | NWPT | CS | Healed within 2 months |
| 81a | Riyaz et al. (2017)182 | 3 | Not specified series of 61 patients, mean age 49.7, 52% male, 3 surgically treated (1 man, 2 woman) | Not specified | STSG (3) | CS (3) | Healed (2), failed (1) |
| 82 | Ishikawa et al. (2015)197 | 1 | 69, M | Abdomen (peristomal) | NPWT and STSG | None | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 83 | Asyyed et al. (2018)183 | 1 | 46, F | Bilateral breast | STSG | CS, CyA, IVIG | 50% Graft take |
| 84 | Choi and Yoo (2018)184 | 1 | 61, F | Leg (lower) | 2 × STSG without IS failed | None, then CS | STSG failed without IS, secondary healing under CS |
| 85 | Ehrl et al. (2018)185 | 1 | NR | Whole thorax after breast augmentation | STSG+Integra | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 86 | Gupta et al. (2018)186 | 1 | 34, F | Scalp | STSG | None | Failed, secondary healing under immunosuppressive therapy |
| 87 | Schwaiger et al. (2018)187 | 5 | 64, F; 80, F; 46, F; 66, M; 65, M | Ankle (1), leg (lower) (4) | STSG (3), STSG+FTSG (1), NWPT (1) | CS (5) | Healed, after 2-year recurrence treated successful with STSG (1), failed with FTSG, healed with STSG (1), healed (3) |
| 88 | Yu et al. (2018)188 | 1 | 51, M | Abdomen peristomal | NWPT+STSG | None | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 89 | Romanelli et al. (2018)189 | 1 | 75, F | Leg (lower) | Cadaver allograft | CS+adalimumab | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 90 | Zheng et al. (2020)190 | 1 | 30, M | Leg (upper) | STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 91 | Dillingham and Jorizzo (2019)191 | 1 | 68, M | Leg (lower) | Porcine urinary bladder matrix+NWPT+STSG | CS | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 92 | Yang et al. (2019)192 | 1 | 54, M | Leg (lower) | NWPT+oxygen irrigation | None | Healed within months |
| 93 | Sousa et al. (2020)193 | 1 | 57, M | Leg (upper) vaginal and perianal | NWPT | CS+infliximab | Healed within months |
| 94 | Shen et al. (2019)194 | 1 | 32, F | Abdomen | NWPT+STSG | CS, IVIG, CyA | Successful graft, healed without recurrence |
| 95 | Borda et al. (2019)195 | 1 | 40, F | Leg (lower) | FTSG | MTX, CyA, infliximab | Wound reduction of 28% after 8 weeks with much improvement |
| 96 | Nieto et al. (2019)75 | 1 | 62, M | Leg (lower) | NWPT | GC+ustekinumab (after failure with infliximab) | Healed within 20 weeks |
| 97 | Grado Sanz et al. (2020)196 | 1 | 31, F | Leg (lower) | NWPT+punch graft | GC, CyA, hydroxychloroquine | Healed within 2 weeks |
| 98–101 | Our published experience: Deluca et al. (2015),56 Larcher et al. (2015),198 Pichler et al. (2016),199 Pichler et al. (2017)200 | 21 | Mean age 62, 67% F (14, F; 7, M) | Legs (19), breast (2), occipital (1) | NPWT and STSG (18), STSG (1), NPWT (2) | CS (21), dapsone (10), infliximab (4), adalimumab (1), MTX (2), IVIG (2), MMF (1), hydroxychloroquine (1), Pentoxifylline (5), Iloprost (4), simvastatin (4) | Completely healed: 16 (76%), with primary healing without recurrence after first treatment cycle in 14 (67%), 2 patients healed after recurrences treated with a second cycle. Over 90% improvement: 3 (14%). Two patients still with larger ulcers (10%): one had healed, but recurred twice, 1 never improved more than 30%. Recurrences observed: 7 (33%), 4 singles, 3 with two or more |
| Preliminary observations in this report | |||||||
| This report | Unpublished data | 1 | 48, F | Lower legs | Porcine xenograft+NPWT, then STSG+NPWT | CS, dapsone, ustekinumab (after failure of infliximab) | STSG 2 weeks after xenotransplant, then successfully healed within 3 weeks after STSG with and IS (CS, dapsone, ustekinumab) |
| This report | Unpublished data | 1 | 47, F | Lower leg | STSG, porcine xenograft (EZ-Derm®) | CS, dapsone, Pentoxifylline, simvastatin | STSG failed 3 × without IS, year-long deep PG healed within 6 months |
| Summary | 101 Articles | 161 Patients | Mean age 52 95% CI 2.6, median 54, minimum 9, maximum 89, F, 115, M, 46 p < 0.001 | Legs 113 (71%), breast 19 (12%), abdomen 10 (6%), other 18 (11%), of those, more than one localization 8 (5%), legs significantly more frequent than all others p < 0.001 | STSG alone 59 (37%), STSG together with HBO, flap or dermal substitute 11 (7%), NPWT alone 22 (14%), NPWT with STSG 41 (26%), NPWT with flaps, punch grafts, dermal substitutes or xenografts 7 (4%), other grafts (FTSG, Pinch, suction blister, cultured cells) 21 (13%) | CS first 149 (93%) after establishment of diagnosis 156 (98%), plus a second IS 41 (26%), plus two or more IS 38 (24%). IS being CyA 31 (19%), dapsone 18 (11%), infliximab or adalimumab 18 (11%), MMF 13 (8%), IVIG 7 (4%), AZA 6 (4%), pentoxifylline 6 (4%), others used in <5 patients | 139 Patients finally healed (86%), of those 17 patients healed, but had one or more recurrences (11%), 16 (10%) improved, 2 died of sepsis (1%). Healing took longer than 2 months in 22 patients (14%), of those, 17 were treated with NPWT, p < 0.001 for longer healing time with NPWT alone. 18 Partially previous, partially recurrent, or primary procedures on 15 patients failed, 12 (67%) of those without IS p < 0.05 |
Author, publication year, number of patients treated with NPWT or grafts, age, gender, localization of PG, procedures performed, systemic treatment, and outcome are reported.
In the case of series, where exact data on age and gender were missing (No. 47, 59, 65, and 81), given mean age was utilized and the corresponding sex percentage.
AZA, azathioprine; CI, confidence interval; CS, corticosteroids; CyA, cyclosporine A; F, female; FTSG, full thickness skin graft; HBO, hyperbaric oxygen; IS, immunosuppression; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulins; M, male; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; NR, not reported; P, patients; PG, pyoderma gangrenosum; STSG, split thickness skin grafting.
Patient management
Patient characteristics of our experience are also summarized in Table 1 and supplemented with two additional cases not previously published. From December 2011, after the first successful treatment of a patient with chronic PG with NPWT and STSG,46 all consecutive patients with PG at the department of dermatology, Bolzano, Italy, were treated with NPWT and STSG. The diagnosis of PG was based on the clinical presentation, the exclusion of an arterial or venous vasculopathy, skin biopsies, and laboratory investigations, including blood and differential blood count, transaminases, creatinine, urea, electrolytes, glucose, thyreoid stimulating hormone, urine analysis, antinuclear antibodies, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, rheumatoid factor or anti-citrulline antibodies, screening for antiphospholipid antibodies, complement C3 and C4, and serum electrophoresis.
Surgical approach
All patients were hospitalized before surgical intervention and immediately received 0.5–1 mg/kg daily (methyl)prednisolone, in addition to further immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy (Table 1). In 20 of 23 patients, a foam-based NPWT (ActiV.A.C.® therapy system; KCI Europe Holding BV, London, United Kingdom, GBR first 17 patients or Vivano System®; PAUL HARTMANN AG, Heidenheim, Germany, latest 4 patients) was started before further surgical intervention. In all patients with V.A.C., the black polyurethane foam (V.A.C. GranuFoam) was used, except on one patient, the black polyurethane-foam was substituted by the white polyvinyl alcohol-foam (V.A.C. WhiteFoam) because of marked pain using the black foam. The negative pressure applied was −125 mmHg, which was reduced to −80 mmHg on one patient due to pain.
All interventions were performed under local tumescence anesthesia as previously described,56,57 except in a bilateral mammary case that was conducted in general anesthesia and the xenotransplantations that did not require anesthesia. Briefly, 0.4% mepivacaine solution in ringer lactate and 0.001% epinephrine was used. In cases where more than 100 mL was required, mepivacaine was further diluted to 0.2% for donor site anesthesia.
Gentle surgical debridement of the wound bed and wound borders was performed; thereafter, 0.3 mm thick STSGs were removed with an electric Dermatome (Aesculap Power Systems, Acculan® 3Ti Dermatome; Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany) and transferred to the recipient site and fixed by NPWT for 3–5 days. All patients also received prophylactic antibiotic therapy, while undergoing surgical management, and thrombosis prophylaxis was performed with subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (Fig. 4, proposed management algorithm).
Figure 4.
Proposed holistic treatment algorithm for PG with basic measures, surgical procedures, possible adjuvant treatment, and a proposed immunosuppressive treatment ladder. Color images are available online.
Statistical analysis
Demographic (e.g., age) results are expressed as median, including mean for age and the 95% confidence interval (CI). Comparisons between groups were performed by the chi-square test and a p-value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.
Results
Up to date, including our series, surgical management of 161 patients with PG has been reported in the literature with a female predominance (females 115; 72%; p < 0.01), with a mean age of 52 years (95% CI ±2.6 years, median 54; range 9–89). Ulcers were significantly more often situated on the lower extremities (n = 113; 71%; p < 0.01 vs. all other localizations), followed by breasts (n = 19; 12%), abdomen (n = 10; 6%), and other localizations (17; 11%). Eight (5%) patients had ulcers on more than one of those sites.
Surgical treatment consisted in STSG alone (n = 59; 37%), STSG together with NPWT (n = 41; 26%), STSG together with hyperbaric oxygen, flap or dermal substitutes 11 (7%), NPWT alone (22; 14%), NPWT with flaps, punch grafts, dermal substitutes, or xenografts 7 (4%), or other forms of grafting (n = 21; 13%) being cultured cells or tissues, punch grafts, suction blister grafts, or full thickness skin grafts (FTSG).
Systemic immunosuppression
Systemic immunosuppression consisted mainly in CS (n = 156; 98%), supplemented with one (n = 41; 26%) or more immunosuppressive drugs (n = 38; 24%), being cyclosporine (n = 31; 19%), dapsone (n = 18; 11%), infliximab or adalimumab (n = 18; 11%), mycophenolate mofetil (n = 13; 8%), intravenous immunoglobulins 7 (4%), azathioprine 6 (4%), pentoxifylline (4%), and others used in <5 patients. Treatment was finally successful in 139 cases (86%), 17 of those (11%) had one or more recurrences. An improvement after the procedure was noted in 16 (10%) patients. Two patients died due to sepsis (1%).
The reports included 18 treatment failures, some of them anamnestic, on 15 patients, 12 of the treatment failures were performed without immunosuppression (67%) and failure occured significantly more often when immunosuppression was missing (p < 0.05). Failure with immunosuppression occurred with the following procedures: transplantation of cultured cells (n = 1), FTSG (n = 1), STSG without NPWT (n = 3), and one case treated with cadaveric allograft, dermal substitute (Integra®), and STSG without NPWT (n = 1). No case of pathergy was observed, neither at the side of PG nor at the skin graft donor sites.
Personal experience
Our personal experience comprises 23 patients, with a median of hospitalization of 4 weeks (mean 8.2 weeks, 95% CI ±3.6 weeks, range 10 days to 30 weeks). The extremely painful ulcers were all situated on the lower extremities, except in one case of occipital and one case of postaugmentation mastopexy PG. The ulcer dimension ranged from 1 × 1 cm, the smallest ulcer in a patient with multiple PG, to 45 × 25 cm. The disease duration of PG in median was 5.5 months (range 1 month to 30 years).
NPWT was started within the first days of hospital admission and systemic immunosuppression was adapted or started simultaneously or a few days before applying NPWT. Immunosuppression consisted in systemic CS (n = 23), dapsone (n = 12), infliximab (n = 4), adalimumab (n = 1), ustekinumab (n = 2), methotrexate (n = 2), and mycophenolate mofetil (n = 1). Immunomodulatory adjuvant treatment consisted of intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 2), pentoxifylline (n = 6), simvastatin (n = 5), and systemic intravenous iloprost (n = 4). As basic measures, an anabolic protein-rich diet was administrated, and other diagnoses were ruled out.
To tolerate the NPWT, especially in the first night after application, adequate pain medication was given, including opioids. Despite the initial painful application of NPWT, pain was markedly on the decrease within the first 24 h of NPWT. Nineteen patients were treated simultaneously with NPWT and STSG, one of them with a previous porcine xenograft described below. Two patients were not grafted because PG first showed fast intrinsic healing with good epithelialization under NPWT and the mammary case was grafted without applying NPWT. Thirteen of the 19 patients grafted had a complete graft take and healed within 2 weeks after STSG. Six patients had a 75–90% graft survival and then they further improved or healed with follow-up.
Four patients treated contemporarily with NPWT and STSG showed a reactivation in the grafted area in 1, 2, 3, and 11 months after intervention and one patient had two recurrences after 4 and 9 months, but all in much minor dimensions. Of those, one patient had a traumatic abrasion of the grafted area and one patient stopped immunosuppressive CS treatment against medical advice a week before reactivation, which might have facilitated the relapse. All patients were successfully retreated. One further patient developed a second PG under infliximab and glucocorticoids (GC) at her left breast after 6 months and was successfully treated and healed within 4 weeks with NPWT followed by STSG secured by NPWT under GC, dapsone, and ustekinumab (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.
Forty-four-year old woman who developed a second PG on her left breast successfully treated with NPWT and STSG. (a) First day of presentation with painful erythematous-violaceous plaque on her left medial breast. (b) Two days later with painful PG ulcer before application of NPWT, (c) stabilized PG after NPWT before STSG. (d) PG after STSG secured 5 days by NPWT, (e) healed ulcer 3 weeks after STSG (f) and at 1-year follow-up. NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; PG, pyoderma gangrenosum; STSG, split thickness skin grafting. Color images are available online.
The outcome of the patients treated with NPWT alone initially showed good intrinsic healing, but the time for complete wound closure nearly took 1 year for one patient and the second patient showed an epithelialization of 20% in 4 months and is still in follow-up. The median time of disease-free follow-up in the patients without relapse was 9 months (range 3–24 months). No reactivation of PG was observed at the skin donor sites. and donor sites healed without complications. The patient with postmastopexy PG underwent esthetic corrective surgery under 50 mg prednisolone after 6 months of the original PG without complications, especially without reactivation of PG.
Preliminary results in the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with porcine xenograft
Two previous unpublished patients were treated with porcine Xenografts (EZ Derm®). The first patient was a 46-year-old woman who had previously failed three STSG performed without immunosuppression in a peripheral hospital. PG was known for 10 years and the current ulcer had been active and growing for 2 years. On hospital admission, she presented with a deep 12 × 17 cm PG ulcer on her left leg with already partially exposed tendons. She was treated by xenograft transplantation fixed by Vivano-NPWT for 5 days with antibiotic and thrombotic prophylaxis under immunosuppression with 0.5 mg/kg methylprednisolone, 100 mg dapsone and adjuvant 400 mg pentoxifylline, and 20 mg simvastatin.
Pain was immediately better the first day after xenograft application and the patient could be discharged after 2 weeks. One month after application of the porcine xenograft, the wound bed was covered completely by granulation tissue. Although the patient refused a definitive closure with STSG, a complete healing by second intention could be achieved after 6 months (Fig. 2). Two years after the first xenotransplant, the patient developed a smaller local recurrence after trauma, which again improved after grafting with EZ-Derm.
Figure 2.
Pyoderma gangrenosum successfully treated with NPWT and a porcine xenograft (EZ-Derm®). (a) PG before application of NPWT and the porcine xenograft, (b) stabilized PG 2 weeks after xenograft application, (c) complete granulation of PG ulcer and closure of the free tendon 1 month after xenograft transplantation, (d) follow-up at 2 months, (e) 3 months (f), 4 months, and (g) 5 months. Wound closed at 6 months. Color images are available online.
The second patient was a 48-year-old woman with already known smaller recurrent cribriform PG ulcers on her legs that were under control with low-dose GC (4 mg methylprednisolone) and infliximab. She developed a large very painful ulcer a few days after a simple trauma, which did not improve with local treatment. She was admitted in our department for immunosuppressive and local treatment. The first application of NPWT failed due to pain, so a porcine xenograft was transplanted and fixed by NPWT for 5 days.
Pain disappeared within the first hours after xenotransplantation. The xenograft was removed with the first NPWT change and showed a markedly improved ulcer, which was covered by simple NPWT that was well tolerated without pain for a further 5 days. Thereafter, an STSG fixed by NPWT could be performed and the ulcer completely healed within 3 weeks after STSG. Her immunosuppressive treatment was changed from infliximab standard dosing (5 mg/kg) to subcutaneous ustekinumab 90 mg in month 1, 2, and every 2 months thereafter, beginning the day of the STSG; further 100 mg dapsone was added and oral methylprednisolone was increased to 36 mg and tapered thereafter (Fig. 3).
Figure 3.
Pyoderma gangrenosum successfully treated with NPWT and STSG. (a) PG before application of NPWT, (b) stabilized PG after NPWT before STSG. (c) PG after STSG (d) at 8-week follow-up, (e) at 3 months and (f) 6 months follow up. Color images are available online.
Discussion
Definitive guidelines for the treatment of PG are lacking due to the rarity of the disease. Therapy in general consists of a combination of systemic anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressive treatment as well as local wound dressings and the treatment of underlying associated diseases.4,58
Systemic treatment
Systemic CS form the backbone of the immunosuppressive treatment. The common use of CS was confirmed in the literature search with a use in over 90% of cases (Table 1). Accordingly, all our personal treated patients received CS at some point of diagnosis. As a second step, we prefer dapsone as anti-inflammatory steroid-sparing agent over cyclosporine, especially in elderly patients, as it does not affect renal function or blood pressure and for its well-known additional antimicrobial properties.59 Indeed, mortality rates from 11% to 16% have been reported for PG and were mostly related to sepsis,5,60 and septic complications were the death cause in the two deceased patients from the literature review. Furthermore, the highest rate of adverse events per therapeutic attempt has been described to occur with cyclosporine (40%), followed by cyclophosphamide (38%) and azathioprine (32%) in a large study on 52 patients by Herberger et al.61
As third step, if deemed necessary, we commonly use the anti-TNF-alpha antibody infliximab for its known rapid action. It is the biologic most used in the treatment of PG and the sole agent with a positive randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial for PG showing improvement in 20 of 29 patients.42,62,63 A recent retrospective study found the following complete response rates for TNF-alpha inhibitors: infliximab 64% (n = 33), adalimumab 57% (n = 28), and etanercept 71% (n = 7). These results were all superior to CS (49%; n = 78).61,64
As second-line biologic treatment. we suggest the use of ustekinumab after the failure of infliximab. It is known to cause fewer side effects and has shown a higher efficacy than infliximab, and is recently commonly used for the treatment of PG after the failure of TNF-alpha inhibitors.61 So Herberger et al.61 reported the successful use in six of nine patients with PG and de Risi-Pugliese et al.65 treated four patients successfully after the failure of infliximab. This could be confirmed in our two cases that failed infliximab, where ustekinumab (90 mg subcutaneous) was successfully used. Up to date, together with our cases, 31 patients have been treated with ustekinumab for PG, 24 (77%) healed, 3 (10%) improved, and 4 patients (13%) failed the treatment. Fourteen of the 31 patients had previously received a TNF-alpha blocker, mainly infliximab, and all of them achieved a complete response under ustekinumab (Table 2).61,65–78
Table 2.
All reports in the literature so far reporting treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with ustekinumab
| Publication, Year (Reference) | Patients No. | Complete Response No. | Partial Response No. | Failure No. | Failed Anti TNF-Alpha No. | Previous Anti TNF-Alpha Molecule |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guenova et al. (2011)66 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fahmy et al. (2012)67 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Infxmb, Ada |
| Goldminz et al. (2012)49 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Ada, Goli, Infxmb |
| Greb et al. (2016)68,a | ||||||
| Cosgarea et al. (2016)69 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Acquitter et al. (2015)70 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Etn |
| Barbosa et al. (2016)71 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Benzaquen et al. (2017)72 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Ada |
| Low and Mar (2018)73 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
| Nunes et al. (2019)74 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Infxmb |
| Nieto et al. (2019)75 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Infxmb |
| Herberger et al. (2019)61 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 3 | NR | NR |
| García Cámara et al. (2019)76 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Infxmb, Ada |
| Vallerand and Hardin (2019)77 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Piqueras-García et al. (2019)78 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Infxmb |
| De Risi-Pugliese et al. (2019)65 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | All Infxmb |
| This report | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | All Infxmb |
| Summary | n = 31 | n = 24 (77.4%) | n = 3 (9.7%) | n = 4 (12.9%) | n = 14 (45.2%) | Infxmb 12, Ada 4, Goli 1, Etn 1 |
Patient numbers treated per report, outcome, and previous failure of anti-TNF alpha treatment are reported.
Same patient as Goldminz, but higher ustekinumab dose.
Ada, adalimumab; Etn, etanercept; Goli, golimumab; Infxmb, infliximab; No., number of patients, TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
We do not recommend the use of anti-IL-17 or anti IL-17 receptor antibodies as there are a few concerning reports of PG induced by this class of biologics79–81 and of their well-known risk to induce or aggravate inflammatory bowel disease, known to be associated with PG.82
For PG on the legs, we further used pentoxifylline as adjuvant treatment in six patients for its known positive rheologic, immunomodulatory, and anti-TNF-alpha activities. Indeed, it is advised by a Cochrane review for leg ulcers and successfully used in other diseases with neutrophil dysfunction like oral aphthous ulcers or Behcet's disease.83
Another drug with anti-inflammatory activity and positive effects on wound healing demonstrated by Evangelista et al. in 2014 in a blinded randomized clinical trial is simvastatin.84 After publication of this trial, it was used in five patients. In difficult cases, the adjuvant use of prostaglandins (iloprost) the day after STSG was used in four patients to facilitate skin grafting. The first to use iloprost in PG and STSG was Zutt et al.85 Its positive effects on inflammation, ischemia, and venous leg ulcers are known.86 Our systemic and chirurgic treatment approach is summarized in Fig. 4.
Surgical treatment
Surgical treatment of active PG ulcers was controversially discussed due to the pathergy phenomenon, which presents with new PG lesions or the rapid progression of existing ulcers after tissue traumatization or surgery.87–89 On the other hand, PG ulcers without skin grafting show prolonged healing (up to several years), also in patients under adequate immunosuppression, which, as a side effect, also defers proper wound healing. Moreover, open wounds are more prone to secondary infections, which potentially represent a further pathergy trigger. Importantly, sepsis is a feared complication of PG in immunosuppressed patients.60,90
In addition, long-term systemic immunosuppressive therapy is associated with a high rate of complications.60 Therefore, an urgent clinical need exists to close open wounds in these patients as fast as possible. The first documented report of a successful skin autograft in PG was in 1968 by Ridenhour and Stephenson91 in a patient treated with a combination of local aqueous silver nitrate and systemic CS. Cliff et al. described the use of STSG in the management of PG in the first case series of four consecutive patients. They conclude that STSG may have a role in the management of this disease under immunosuppressive therapy.92 Subsequently, more authors described the role of surgical management in PG and up to date, including our series, 161 patients have been successfully managed surgically with skin grafts or NPWT combined with an effective immunosuppressive therapy (Table 1).
The simultaneous immunosuppression is of uppermost importance because STSG without immunosuppression exacerbates or triggers PG and new lesions might even occur at the donor site.93–95 Six of seven patients have been successfully treated with cultured human cells or tissue, but one took longer than 6 months to heal and two recurred shortly thereafter. These results are not superior if compared to classical STSG alone or in combination with NPWT, and do not justify this costly and time-consuming procedure; indeed, the last attempt published with this method was 2011.96 Similar results are achieved with dermal substitutes (Integra n = 7 and Apligraf® n = 1), which were used in eight procedures (alone n = 1, with STSG n = 3, with NPWT and STSG n = 2, and with NPWT n = 2), two of those failed, one without immunosuppression (Table 1).
Aggressive surgical debridement alone without immediate skin grafting should not be performed as it leads to pathergy or aggravation of PG in up to 20% of cases even in patients with immunosuppression.60
A valuable option for wound conditioning is NPWT. It has become an important tool for the management of complex wounds. Despite its use in daily practice, the evidence base demonstrating effectiveness of NPWT to heal chronic wounds remains poor due to the paucity of randomized clinical trials.97 Better evidence exists for the NPWT after skin graft placement in difficult wound beds.98 The percentage of overall skin graft take and maximum graft take is higher if grafts are secured by NPWT and significantly fewer repeated grafts are required if NPWT is used.99,100 This is also confirmed by our personal experience and the cases from the literature. No single failure was described in patients where the STSG was secured by NPWT, whereas STSG without fixation failed in 14 procedures, in 4 with and in 10 without immunosuppression.
The first successful treatment of PG with NPWT without skin grafting was reported in 2005 by Geller and Longton.101 Since then, 22 patients have been reported with NPWT alone for the treatment of PG. As with STSG, it is important to perform NPWT in inactive PG or under adequate immunosuppression as NPWT alone does not halt the progression of active PG.102–104 The combination of NPWT with skin grafting has been reported in 22 cases and our experience adds further 19 cases of PG under immunosuppression with NPWT and STSG. We confirm the safe use of NPWT in the treatment of PG with a drastic improvement of pain perception within the first day. Indeed, NPWT seems to halt the inflammatory process probably by modifying the inflammatory micromilieu by decreasing proinflammatory cytokines. Granulation tissue usually forms within few days.
Despite halting the inflammatory process, NPWT, without skin grafting, seems not to accelerate the healing time; indeed, the time to complete healing in the reported cases ranged from several months to years.92–95,97–100 A longer healing time than 2 months was reported in 22 patients; of those, 17 were treated with NPWT alone, this was significantly more often if compared to all other treatment methods with grafting (p < 0.001). This applied also for our two cases not grafted after successful stopping of the underlying inflammation by immunosuppression and NPWT, where healing took several months. In contrast, combined NPWT with STSG resulted in healing within 1 month after skin grafting (mean 4 weeks); therefore, a combination of NPWT with STSG is highly recommended to accelerate wound healing.
Preliminary observational study on the use of porcine xenografts in PG
In some patients, we are faced with temporary or persistent contraindications for autologous STSG. These can be wounds with exposed tendons or bones or atrophic skin at the donor sites due to long-term treatment with systemic CS.105 To preserve the positive effect of wound bed preparation with NPWT under immunosuppression, an alternative way of durable wound coverage in these patients would be desirable. Skin substitutes, initially developed for coverage of partial thickness burns,106,107 are used in different types of acute or chronic wounds.108,109 They protect the wound bed from infection and water loss and can create an environment suitable for epidermal growth.110
In one of our patients with a PG on the lower leg, the ulcer had an exposed tendon; despite adequate wound bed preparation with previous NPWT, we applied a temporary wound coverage with a porcine xenograft (EZ Derm). This is an aldehyde crosslinked porcine dermis, which is applied directly on the prepared wound bed. In difference to cadaver allografts, no graft vascularization occurs. The porcine xenotransplant adheres tightly to the wound bed with accordingly positive effects on pain, confirmed also in our patients, wound environment, and risk of infection.111 We prefer the porcine xenograft to other dermal substitutes because of our positive experience in burn patients and patient with difficult–to-treat wounds,105 and the significantly reduced costs compared to other dermal substitutes like Integra or Apligraf. We further speculate that the good clinical effects observed by the xenograft might be a direct immunological effect of the xenomaterial itself, shifting the local immune response from an autoinflammatory granulocyte-mediated status to a T cell-mediated orientation. Indeed, after 5 days of contact mediated by NPWT, good “healthy” granulation tissue had been formed in both cases.
Future Directions
This largest comprehensive review confirms the paradigm change that surgical treatment of PG with STSG secured by NPWT is a safe treatment, if performed under adequate immunosuppression; indeed, it could be considered the first-line treatment option in larger PG ulcers as it markedly improves healing time. Due to deeper insights into pathogenesis and growing clinical reports, a broader utilization of biologic treatments and a shift from TNF-alpha to IL-12/23 or IL-23 antibodies alone is predictable, as the later shows good clinical responses with fewer side effects. The positive results with porcine xenotransplants might be due to immunological effects of the xenomaterial and are promising, but preliminary, and should be confirmed in a larger patient collective.
Summary
According to the literature and personal experience, wound preparation with NPWT and surgical treatment with gentle debridement and STSG under adequate immunosuppressive therapy is a very valuable and safe treatment of PG. This treatment accelerates wound healing, shortens the administration of pain medication and high-dose immunosuppressive treatment, and reduces the risk for infection. STSG can be safely performed in local tumescence anesthesia without complications or reactivation of PG in the postsurgical period, neither in the transplanted area nor on the donor site.
There remains the problem of the chronic nature of PG and the recurrence after tapering of immunosuppression or trauma,112–114 as we observed in our case series with a recurrence rate of 28%. Therefore, a sustained immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatment with slow tapering after complete wound healing is suggested.60 All recurrences reported, however, were minor and successfully revisited by surgery, NPWT, or more often, even conservatively.
Take-Home Messages
PG is a rare but debilitating autoinflammatory skin disease leading to large very painful skin ulcerations mainly in the lower extremities.
Mortality of patients with PG is elevated mainly to sepsis and treatment of PG ulcers is time-consuming, involving local wound care, including NPWT, systemic immunosuppression, and surgical interventions.
PG itself is a feared complication of surgical interventions as trauma might aggravate the condition, but surgery, especially STSG performed with adequate immunosuppression, is a safe treatment method for PG.
Without surgical intervention and systemic immunosuppression, ulcers take months to years for healing, if healing at all.
The best surgical approach appears to be STSG secured by NPWT as this leads to higher skin graft take, no failure of this method has been reported in the treatment of PG.
Despite halting the inflammatory process, NPWT alone, without skin grafting, does not accelerate healing time and should be followed by STSG if possible.
In case of exposed tendons or dermatoporosis, where STSG is not an adequate option, dermal substitutes, especially porcine xenografts, might be a good treatment option.
Immunosuppression should be performed with systemic glucocorticoids as backbone, but other steroid-sparing agents should be added. We propose the following ladder: first add dapsone and then the TNF-alpha antibody infliximab. If this should fail, the anti-IL-12/23 antibody ustekinumab should be tried in adequate dosing, as it has been shown to work when infliximab fails.
We predict a broader utilization of biologic treatment and a shift from TNF-alpha to IL-12/23 or IL-23 antibodies alone, as the later shows good clinical responses with fewer side effects.
Acknowledgment and Funding Sources
The authors thank the librarian of the Claudiana College of Health Care Professionals Inge Andolfo for her professional help in the retrieval of full text articles. This work has no funding source.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
- CI
confidence interval
- CS
corticosteroids
- FTSG
full thickness skin graft
- IL
interleukin
- MMP
matrix metalloproteinase
- NPWT
negative pressure wound therapy
- PG
pyoderma gangrenosum
- STSG
split thickness skin grafting
- TNF
tumor necrosis factor
Author Disclosure and Ghostwriting
No competing financial interests exist. The content of this article was expressly written by the authors listed. No ghostwriters were used to write this article.
About the Authors
Klaus Eisendle, MD, MSc, PhD, MBA, is the president of the College of Health Care Professions Claudiana and Department Head of the Academic Teaching Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology in the Central Teaching Hospital of Bolzano, the capital of South Tyrol province in Italy. As dermatologic surgeon, he has a special interest in wound care and wound healing. Tobias Thuile, MD, is a specialist in dermatology and wound management in Bolzano Central Hospital. Jenny Deluca, MD, is a specialist in dermatology, with focalization on immunology. Maria Pichler, MD, is a specialist in dermatology and made her thesis on PG.
References
- 1. Brunsting LA, Goeckermann WH, O'Leary PA. Pyoderma (ecthyma) gangrenosum: clinical and experimental observations in 5 cases occurring in adults. Arch Dermatol Syph 1930;22:655 [Google Scholar]
- 2. Sick I, Trautner B, Ruzicka T. Surgical management of pyoderma gangrenosum. Hautarzt 2012;63:577–583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Al Ghazal P, Herberger K, Schaller J, et al. Associated factors and comorbidities in patients with pyoderma gangrenosum in Germany: a retrospective multicentric analysis in 259 patients. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2013;8:136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bennett ML, Jackson JM, Jorizzo JL, Fleischer AB, White WL, Callen JP. Pyoderma gangrenosum. A comparison of typical and atypical forms with an emphasis on time to remission. Case review of 86 patients from 2 institution. Medicine (Baltimore) 2000;79:37–46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Binus AM, Qureshi AA, Li VW, Winterfield LS. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a retrospective review of patient characteristics, comorbidities and therapy in 103 patients. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:1244–1503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Langan SM, Groves RW, Card TR, Gulliford MC. Incidence, mortality, and disease associations of pyoderma gangrenosum in the United Kingdom: a retrospective cohort study. J Invest Dermatol 2012;132:2166–2170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Marzano AV, Trevisan V, Lazzari R, Crosti C. Pyoderma gangrenosum: study of 21 patients and proposal of a “clinicotherapeutic” classification. J Dermatolog Treat 2011;22:254–260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Nesterovitch AB, Gyorfy Z, Hoffman MD, et al. Alteration in the gene encoding protein tyrosine phosphatase nonreceptor type 6 (PTPN6/SHP1) may contribute to neutrophilic dermatoses. Am J Pathol 2011;178:1434–1441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Mittal S, Milner BJ, Vickers MA. Pyoderma gangrenosum as a cause of splenomegaly and association with a T-cell clone. Clin Lab Haematol 2005;27:402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Probert CS, Brooklyn TN, Williams AM, Dunnill MGS: T-cell receptor repertoire in pyoderma gangrenosum: evidence for clonal expansions and trafficking. Br J Dermatol 2007;157:960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Su WPD, Schroeter AL, Perry HO, Powell FC. Histopathologic and immunopathologic study of pyoderma-gangrenosum. J Cutan Pathol 1986;13:323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Oka M, Berking C, Nesbit M, et al. Interleukin-8 overexpression is present in pyoderma gangrenosum ulcers and leads to ulcer formation in human skin xenografts. Lab Invest 2000;80:595–604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tanaka N, Fujioka A, Tajima S, Ishibashi A, Hirose S. Elafin is induced in epidermis in skin disorders with dermal neutrophilic infiltration: interleukin-1 beta and tumour necrosis factor-alpha stimulate its secretion in vitro. Br J Dermatol 2000;143:728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Bister V, Makitalo L, Jeskanen L, et al. Expression of MMP-9, MMP-10 and TNF-alpha and lack of epithelial MMP-1 and MMP-26 characterize pyoderma gangrenosum. J Cutan Pathol 2007;34:889–898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. George C, Deroide F, Rustin M. Pyoderma gangrenosum—a guide to diagnosis and management. Clin Med (Lond) 2019;19:224–228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wilkes SR, Williams HC, Ormerod AD, et al. Is speed of healing a good predictor of eventual healing of pyoderma gangrenosum? J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;75:1216..e2–1220.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Ruocco E, Sangiuliano S, Gravina AG, Miranda A, Nicoletti G. Pyoderma gangrenosum: an update review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009;23:1008–1017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Larsen S, Bendtzen K, Nielsen OH. Extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease: epidemiology, diagnosis, and management. Ann Med 2010;42:97–114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Powell FC, Su WP, Perry HO. Pyoderma gangrenosum: classification and management. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;34:395–409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Von den Driesch P. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a report of 44 cases with follow-up. Br J Dermatol 1997;137:1000–1005 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Al Ghazal P, Körber A, Klode J, Dissemond J. Investigation of new co-factors in 49 patients with pyoderma gangrenosum. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2012;10:251–257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Brooklyn T, Dunnill G, Probert C. Diagnosis and treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. BMJ 2006;333:181–184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Hadi A, Lebwohl M. Clinical features of pyoderma gangrenosum and current diagnostic trends. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011;64:950–954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Nobbe S, Hafner J. Martorell hypertensive ischaemic leg ulcer [in German]. Zentralbl Chir 2015;140:542–546 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Hafner J, Nobbe S, Partsch H, et al. Martorell hypertensive ischemic leg ulcer: a model of ischemic subcutaneous arteriolosclerosis. Arch Dermatol 2010;146:961–968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Vidal D, Puig L, Gilaberte M, Alomar A. Review of 26 cases of classical pyoderma gangrenousm: clinical and therapeutic features. J Dermatolog Treat 2004;15:146–152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Turner RB, Emer JJ, Weill M, Winterfield L, Friedman S, Qureshi AA. Rapid resolution of pyoderma gangrenosum after treatment with intravenous cyclosporine. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010;63:e72–e74 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Daniels NH, Callen JP. Mycophenolate mofetil is an effective treatment for peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum. Arch Dermatol 2004;140:1427–1429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Teitel AD. Treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with methotrexate. Cutis 1996;57:326–328 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Byrne JP, Hewitt M, Summerley R. Pyoderma gangrenosum associated with active chronic hepatitis: report of two cases. Arch Dermatol 1976;112:1297–1301 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Brown BA, Parker CT, Bower KS. Effective steroid-sparing treatment for peripheral ulcerative keratitis and pyoderma gangrenosum. Cornea 2001;20:117–118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Teasley LA, Foster CS, Baltatzis S. Sclerokeratitis and facial skin lesions: a case report of pyoderma gangrenosum and its response to dapsone therapy. Cornea 2007;26:215–219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Brown RE, Lay L, Graham D. Bilateral pyoderma gangrenosum of the hand: treatment with dapsone. J Hand Surg Br 1993;18:119–121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Galun E, Flugelman MY, Rachmilewitz D. Pyoderma gangrenosum complicating ulcerative colitis: successful treatment with methylprednisolone pulse therapy and dapsone. Am J Gastroenterol 1986;81:988–989 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Hughes AP, Jackson JM, Callen JP. Clinical features and treatment of peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum. JAMA 2000;284:1546–1548 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Koca E, Duman AE, Cetiner D, et al. Successful treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome-induced pyoderma gangrenousm. Neth J Med 2006;64:422–424 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Rustin MH, Gilkes JJ, Robinson TW. Pyoderma gangrenosum associated with Behcet's disease: treatment with thalidomide. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990;23(Pt 1):941–944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Munro CS, Cox NH. Pyoderma gangrenousm associated with Behcet's syndrome—response to thalidomide. Clin Exp Dermatol 1988;13:408–410 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Federman GL, Federman DG. Recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum treated with thalidomide. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:842–844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. de Zwaan SE, Iland HJ, Damian DL. Treatment of refractory pyoderma gangrenousm with intravenous immunoglobulin. Australas J Dermatol 2009;50:56–59 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Dobson CM, Parslew RA, Evans S. Superficial granulomatous pyoderma treated with intravenous immunoglobulin. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;48:456–460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Brooklyn TN, Dunnill MG, Shetty A, et al. Infliximab for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Gut 2006;55:505–509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Fonder MA, Cummins DL, Ehst BD, Anhald GJ, Meyerle JH. Adalimumab therapy for recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum. J Burns Wounds 2006;5:e8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Pomerantz RG, Husni ME, Mody E, Qureshi AA. Adalimumab for treatment of pyoderma ganrenosum. Br J Dermatol 2007;157:1274–1275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Heffernan MP, Anadkat MJ, Smith DI. Adalimumab treatment for pyoderma gangrenosum. Arch Dermatol 2007;143:306–308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Pastor N, Betlloch I, Pascual JC, Blanes M, Banuls J, Silvestre JF. Pyoderma gangrenosum treated with anti-TNF alpha therapy (etanercept). Clin Exp Dermatol 2005;31:152–153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Rogge FJ, Pacifico M, Kang N. Treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with the anti-TNF alfa drug—etanercept. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008;61:431–433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Kim FS, Pandya AG. The use of etanercept in the treatment of peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum. Clin Exp Dermatol 2012;37:442–443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Goldminz AM, Botto NC, Gottlieb AB. Severely recalcitrante pyoderma gangrenosum successfully treated with ustekinumab. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012;67:e237–e238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Kluber N. Ustekinumab for pyoderma gangrenosum. Arch Dermatol 2012;148:655–656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Baltazar D, Haag C, Gupta AS, Marzano AM, Ortega Loayza AG. A comprehensive review of local pharmacologic therapy for pyoderma gangrenosum. Wounds 2019;31:151–157 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Croitoru D, Naderiazad S, Sachadeva M, Piguet V, Alavi A. A wound care specialist's approach to pyoderma gangrenosum. Adv Wound Care (in press) .. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Bellini V, Simonetti S, Lisi P. Successful treatment of severe pyoderma gangrenosum with pimecrolimus cream 1%. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2008;22:113–115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Liaqat M, Elsensohn AN, Hansen CD, Maughan JA, Petersen MJ. Acute postoperative pyoderma gangrenosum case and review of literature identifying chest wall predominance and no recurrence following skin grafts. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;71:e145–e146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Zuo KJ, Fung E, Tredget EE, Lin AN. A systematic review of post-surgical pyoderma gangrenosum: identification of risk factors and proposed management strategy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015;68:295–303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Deluca J, Gatscher B, Tappeiner L, Pichler M, Eisendle K. Direct comparison between negative pressure therapy (VAC™) and negatively charged polystyrene microspheres (Polyheal™) in wound bed preparation for split skin graft in two large chronic leg ulcers—a single patient experience. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015;29:1649–1651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Pichler M, Deluca J, Tappeiner L, Eisendle K. Reconstruction of large rectangular infraorbital and malar skin defects in elderly patients with a modified “reading man flap” using local tumescent anesthesia. Int J Dermatol 2014;53:1520–1525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Reichrath JBG. Treatment recommendations for pyoderma gangrenosum: an evidence-based review of the literature based on more than 350 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;53:273–283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Wozel G, Blasum D. Dapsone in dermatology and beyond. Arch Dermatol Res 2014;306:103–124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Cabalag MS, Wasiak J, Lim SW, Raiola FB. Inpatient management of pyoderma gangrenosum: treatments, outcomes, and clinical implications. Ann Plast Surg 2015;74:354–360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Herberger K, Dissemond J, Brüggestrat S, Sorbe C, Augustin M. Biologics and immunoglobulins in the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum—analysis of 52 patients. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2019;17:32–41 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Patel F, Fitzmaurice S, Duong C, et al. Effective strategies for the management of pyoderma gangrenosum: a comprehensive review. Acta Derm Venereol 2015;95:525–531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Goodarzi H, Sivamani RK, Garcia MS, et al. Effective strategies for the management of pyoderma gangrenosum. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2012;1:194–199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Speeckaert R, Lambert J, van Geel N. Learning from success and failure: biologics for non-approved skin diseases. Front Immunol 2019;10:1918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. de Risi-Pugliese T, Seksik P, Bouaziz JD, et al. Ustekinumab treatment for neutrophilic dermatoses associated with Crohn's disease: a multicenter retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80:781–784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Guenova E, Teske A, Fehrenbacher B, et al. Interleukin 23 expression in pyoderma gangrenosum and targeted therapy with ustekinumab. Arch Dermatol 2011;147:1203–1205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Fahmy M, Ramamoorthy S, Hata T, Sandborn WJ. Ustekinumab for peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:794–795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Greb JE, Gottlieb AB, Goldminz AM. High-dose ustekinumab for the treatment of severe, recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum. Dermatol Ther 2016;29:482–483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Cosgarea I, Lovric Z, Körber A, Dissemond J. Successful treatment of refractory pyoderma gangrenosum with ustekinumab only after excision of renal cell carcinoma. Int Wound J 2016;13:1041–1042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Acquitter M, Plantin P, Kupfer I, Auvinet H, Marhadour T. Anakinra improves pyoderma gangrenosum in psoriatic arthritis: a case report. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:70–71 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Barbosa NS, Tolkachjov SN, El-Azhary RA, et al. Clinical features, causes, treatments, and outcomes of peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum (PPG) in 44 patients: the Mayo Clinic experience, 1996 through 2013. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;75:931–939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Benzaquen M, Monnier J, Beaussault Y, Rouby F, Berbis P. Pyoderma gangrenosum arising during treatment of psoriasis with adalimumab: effectiveness of ustekinumab. Australas J Dermatol 2017;58:e270–e271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Low ZM, Mar A. Treatment of severe recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum with ustekinumab. Australas J Dermatol 2018;59:131–134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Nunes G, Patita M, Fernandes V. Refractory pyoderma gangrenosum in a patient with Crohn's disease: complete response to ustekinumab. J Crohns Colitis 2019;13:812–813 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Nieto D, Sendagorta E, Rueda JM, Herranz P. Successful treatment with ustekinumab and vacuum-assisted closure therapy in recalcitrant myelodysplastic syndrome-associated pyoderma gangrenosum: case report and literature review. Clin Exp Dermatol 2019;44:116–119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. García Cámara P, Zubiri Ara ML, García López S. Ustekinumab in a patient with pyoderma gangrenosum and refractory Crohn's disease. Med Clin (Barc) 2019;153:e35–e36 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Vallerand IA, Hardin J. Ustekinumab for the treatment of recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep 2019;7:2050313X19845206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Piqueras-García J, Sahuquillo-Torralba AJ, Torres-Navarro I, Botella-Estrada R. Pyoderma gangrenosum with ulcerative colitis successfully treated with ustekinumab. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2019;110:776–778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Pinard J, Chiang DY, Mostaghimi A, Granter SR, Merola JF, Barkoudah E. Wounds that would not heal: pyoderma gangrenosum. Am J Med 2018;131:377–379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Jin K, Matsuzaki Y, Akasaka E, Nakano H, Sawamura D. Pyoderma gangrenosum triggered by switching from adalimumab to secukinumab. J Dermatol 2019;46:e108–e109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Wollina U, Schönlebe J, Fürll C. Pyoderma gangrenosum induced by secukinumab-a late paradoxical drug reaction. Dermatol Ther 2020;33:e13161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Yamada A, Wang J, Komaki Y, Komaki F, Micic D, Sakuraba A. Systematic review with meta-analysis: risk of new onset IBD with the use of anti-interleukin-17 agents. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019;50:373–385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Jull AB, Arroll B, Parag V, Waters J. Pentoxifylline for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD001733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Evangelista MT, Casintahan MF, Villafuerte LL. Simvastatin as a novel therapeutic agent for venous ulcers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2014;170:1151–1157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Zutt M, Haas E, Kruger U, Distler M, Neumann C. Successful use of vacuum-assisted closure therapy for leg ulcers caused by occluding vasculopathy and inflammatory vascular disease- a case series. Dermatology 2007;214:319–324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Ferrara F, Meli F, Raimondi F, et al. The treatment of venous leg ulcers: a new therapeutic use of iloprost. Ann Surg 2007;246:860–865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Aydin S, Arioglu Aydin C, Güngor Ugurlucan F, Yasa C, Durao O. Recurrent pyoderma gangrenosum after cesarean delivery successfully treated with vacuum-assisted closure and split thickness skin graft: a case report. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015;41:635–639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Kolios L, Hirche C, Ryssel H, Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A. Pyoderma gangrenosum as a major complication in breast reconstruction with free double-DIEP-flap. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2012;44:89–92 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Steenbrugge F, Raaijmaakers M, Caekebeke P, Van Landuyt K. Pyoderma gangrenosum following trauma of the knee: a case of pathergy and review of orthopaedic cases. Injury 2011;42:421–423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Stair-Buchmann ME, Ackerman BH, Reigart CL, Haith LR Jr., Patton ML, Guilday RE. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a difficult diagnosis best managed in a burn treatment center. J Burn Care Res 2015;36:e190–e193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Ridenhour G, Stephenson HE. Pyoderma gangrenosum successfully treated with aqueous silver nitrate (0.5 per cent) steroids, and skin autografts. Ann Surg 1968;168:905–910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Cliff S, Holden CA, Thomas PR, Marsden RA, Harland CC. Split skin grafts in the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. A report of four cases. Dermatol Surg 1999;25:299–302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Altunay IK, Sezgin SA, Ileri U, et al. Atypical hemorrhagic bullous pyoderma gangrenosum. Int J Dermatol 2001;40:327–329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Steenvoorde P, Oskam J. Diagnostic image (211). A man with a skin wound after a dog bite [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2004;148:2071. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Betto P. Atypical pyoderma gangrenosum complicating a skin graft. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2010;145:317–318 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Lambropoulos V, Patsatsi A, Tsona A, Papakonstantinou A, Filippopoulos A, Sotiriadis D. The adverse consequences of pyoderma gangrenosum in a 13 year old child. Int J Surg Case Rep 2011;2:221–224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Venturi ML, Attinger CE, Mesbahi AN, Hess CC, Graw KS. Mechanism and clinical applications of the vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) device: a review. Am J Clin Dermatol 2005;6:185–194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Schneider AM, Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC. A new reliable method of securing skin grafts to the difficult recipient bed. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;102:1195–1198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Blume PA, Key JJ, Thakor P, Thakor S, Sumpio B. Retrospective evaluation of clinical outcomes in subjects with split-thickness skin graft: comparing V.A.C. therapy and conventional therapy in foot and ankle reconstructive surgeries. Int Wound J 2010;7:480–487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Körber A, Franckson T, Grabbe S, Dissemond J. Vacuum assisted closure device improves the take of mesh grafts in chronic leg ulcer patients. Dermatology 2008;216:250–256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Geller SM, Longton JA. Ulceration of pyoderma gangrenosum treated with negative pressure wound therapy. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2005;95:171–174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Sebastian VA, Carroll BT, Jessen ME. Pyoderma gangrenosum associated with chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010;10:135–137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Akanay-Diesel S, Hoff NP, Kürle S, et al. Sunitinib induced pyoderma gangrenosum-like ulcerations. Eur J Med Res 2011;16:491–494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Zelones JT, Nigriny JF. Pyoderma gangrenosum after deep inferior epigastric perforator breast reconstruction: systematic review and case report. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5:e1239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Eisendle K, Thuile T, Puviani M, Pichler M. Successful treatment of an extensive abrasion ulcer in chronic atrophic skin with a porcine xenograft after failure of multiple treatment modalities. Int J Dermatol 2019;58:e161–e162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Diegidio P, Hermiz SJ, Ortiz-Pujols S, et al. Even better than the real thing? Xenografting in pediatric patients with scald injury. Clin Plast Surg 2017;44:651–656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Burkey B, Davis W 3rd, Glat PM. Porcine xenograft treatment of superficial partial-thickness burns in paediatric patients. J Wound Care 2016;25:S10–S15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Davis DA, Arpey CJ. Porcine heterografts in dermatologic surgery and reconstruction. Dermatol Surg 2000;26:76–80 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Yang YW, Ochoa SA. Use of porcine xenografts in dermatology surgery: the Mayo Clinic experience. Dermatol Surg 2016;42:985–991 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Yamamoto T, Iwase H, King TW, Hara H, Cooper DKC. Skin xenotransplantation: historical review and clinical potential. Burns 2018;44:1738–1749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Troy J, Karlnoski R, Downes K, et al. The use of EZ Derm® in partial-thickness burns: an institutional review of 157 patients. Eplasty 2013;13:e14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Kaddoura IL, Amm C. A rationale for adjuvant surgical intervention in pyoderma gangrenosum. Ann Plast Surg 2001;46:23–28 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Rozen SM, Nahabedian MY, Manson PN. Management strategies for pyoderma gangrenosum: case studies and review of literature. Ann Plast Surg 2001;47:310–315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Melson MR, Grossniklaus HE, Murchison AP. Pyoderma gangrenosum of the eyelids: recurrence in a skin graft. Ophtal Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;26:295–297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. McGarity WC, Barnett SM. Pyoderma gangrenosum in Crohn's disease: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 1977;20:49–52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Davis JC, Landeen JM, Levine RA. Pyoderma gangrenosum: skin grafting after preparation with hyperbaric oxygen. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;79:200–207 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Gérard A, Schooneman F, Voiriot P, Canton P, Streiff F, Dureux JB. Pyoderma gangrenosum: treatment with plasma exchange (4 cases). Ann Med Interne (Paris) 1988;139(Suppl 1):29–31 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Dean SJ, Nieber S, Hickerson WL. The use of cultured epithelial autograft in a patient with idiopathic pyoderma gangrenosum. Ann Plast Surg 1991;26:194–195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Límová M, Mauro T. Treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with cultured keratinocyte autografts. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1994;20:833–836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Maier H, Diem E, Gotschim A, Ortel B. Pyoderma gangrenosum as a precuresor for myeloid leukemia. Hautarzt 1995;46:647–650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Vereecken P, Wautrecht FC, De Dobbeleer G, Heenen M. A case of pyoderma gangrenosum stabilized with lymecycline, topical benzoyl peroxide and treated by autograft. Dermatology 1997;195:50–51 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Michel S, Hohenleutner U, Mohr V, Landthaler M. Therapy-resistant pyoderma gangrenosum-treatment with mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine A. Hautarzt 1998;50:428–431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Havlik RJ, Giles PD, Havlik NL. Pyoderma gangrenosum of the breast: sequential grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;101:1909–1914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Sotillo-Gago I, Muñoz-Pérez MA, Camacho-Martinez F. Pyoderma gangrenosum after augmentation mammoplasty. Acta Derm Venereol 1999;79:486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. de Imus G, Golomb C, Wilkel C, Tsoukas M, Nowak M, Falanga V. Accelerated healing of pyoderma gangrenosum treated with bioengineered skin and concomitant immunosuppression. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;44:61–66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Gilmour E, Stewart DG. Severe recalcitrant pyoderma gangrenosum responding to a combination of mycophenolate mofetil with cyclosporine and complicated by a mononeuritis. Br J Dermatol 2001;144:397–400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Lifchez SD, Larson DL. Pyoderma gangrenosum after reduction mammoplasty in an otherwise healthy patient. Ann Plast Surg 2002;49:410–413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Gulyas K, Kimble FW. Atypical pyoderma gangrenosum after breast reduction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003;27:328–331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Poucke SV, Jorens PG, Peeters R, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a challenging complication of bilateral mastopexy. Int Wound J 2004;1:207–213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Horner B, El-Muttardi N, Mercer D. Pyoderma gangrenosum complicating bilateral breast reduction. Br J Plast Surg 2004;57:679–681 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Zakhireh M, Rockwell WB, Fryer Richard H. Stabilization of pyoderma gangrensoum ulcer with oral cyclosporine prior to skin grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1417–1420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Niezgoda JA, Cabigas EB, Allen HK, Simanonok JP, Kindwall EP, Krumenauer JL. Managing pyoderma gangrenosum: a synergistic approach combining surgical débridement, vacuum-assisted closure, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:24e–28e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Keskin M, Tosun Z, Ucar C, Savaci N. Pyoderma gangrenosum in a battered child. Ann Plast Surg 2006;57:228–230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Ghersi MM, Ricotti C, Nousari CH, Newman MI. Negative pressure dressing in the management of pyoderma gangrenosum ulcer. Arch Dermatol 2007;143:1249–1251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Hoff NP, Homey B, Bruch-Gerharz D, Stege H. Multimodal treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. Hautarzt 2008;59:280–283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Kim DW, Lee BI, Park SH. Accelerated healing of pyoderma gangrenosum in Behcet patient treated with cyclosporine and split thickness skin graft. Ann Plast Surg 2008;61:552–554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Toyozawa S, Yamamoto Y, Nishide T, et al. Case report: a case or pyoderma gangrenosum with intractable leg ulcers treated by allogeneic cultured dermal substitutes. Dermatol Online J 2008;14:17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Descheemaeker V, Aillet S, Morcel K, Gravier A, Meyer N, Levéque J. Pyoderma gangrenosum and breast cancer: a case report. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2008;37:618–621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. Procianoy F, Barbato MT. Osowski LE, Bocaccio FJ, Bakos L. Cicatricial ectropion correction in a patient with pyoderma gangrenosum: case report. Arg Bras Oftalmol 2009;72:384–386 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Rajapakse Y, Bunker CB, Ghattaura A, et al. Case report: pyoderma gangrenosum following deep inferior epigastric perforator (Diep) free flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:395–396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Wollina U, Karamfilov T. Treatment of recalcitrant ulcers in pyoderma gangrenosum with mycophenolate mofetil and autologous keratinocyte transplantation on a hyaluronic acid matrix. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2000;14:187–190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Rietjens M, Cuccia G, Brenelli F, Manconi A, Martella S, De Lorenzi F. A pyoderma gangrenosum following breast reconstruction: a rare cause of skin necrosis. Breast J 2010;16:200–202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Schintler MV, Grohmann M, Donia C, Aberer E, Scharnagl E. Management of an unfortunate triad after breast reconstruction: pyoderma gangrenosum, full-thickness chest wall defect and Acinetobacter baumannii infection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2010;63:e564–e567 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Lamet S, Bracke A, Geluykens E, et al. Medical and surgical management of paraneoplastic pyoderma gangrenosum—a case report and review of literature. Acta Clin Belg 2010;65:37–40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Schoemann MB, Zenn MR. Pyoderma gangrenosum following free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous breast reconstruction: a case report. Ann Plast Surg 2010;64:151–154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Kikuchi N, Hanami Y, Miura T, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum following surgical procedures. Int J Dermatol 2010;49:346–348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Goshtasby PH, Chami RG, Johnson RM. A novel approach to the management of pyoderma gangrenosum complicating reduction mammoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2010;30:186–193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Andreev Dlu. Autodermoplasty with split skin grafts in treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. Vestn Khir Im I Grek 2011;170:72–75 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Hafner J, Kühne A, Trüeb RM. Successful grafting with EpiDex in pyoderma gangrenosum. Dermatology 2006;212:258–259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Mandal A, Addison P, Stewart K, Neligan P. Vacuum-assisted closure therapy in pyoderma gangrenosum. Eur J Plast Surg 2006;28:529–531 [Google Scholar]
- 151. Hill DS, O'Neill JK, Toms A, Watts AM. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a report of a rare complication after knee arthroplasty requiring muscle flap cover supplemented by negative pressure therapy and hyperbaric oxygen. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2011;64:1528–1532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Gámiz RC, Nielsen AM. Topical negative pressure and skin transplantation for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. Ugeskr Laeger 2011;173:2132–2133 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. Saracino A, Kelly R, Liew D, Chong A. Pyoderma gangrenosum requiring inpatient management: a report of 26 cases with follow up. Australas J Dermatol 2011;52:218–221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Fraccalvieri M, Fierro MT, Salomone M, et al. Gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy: a valid method to manage pyoderma gangrenosum. Int Wound J 2014;11:164–168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Neiderer K, Martin B, Hoffman S, Jolley D, Dancho J. A mechanically powered negative pressure device used in conjunction with a bioengineered cell-based product for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum: a case report. Ostomy Wound Manage 2012;58:44–48 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Carrasco Cubero C, Ruiz Tudela MM, Salaberri Maestrojuan JJ, Pérez Venegas JJ. Pyoderma gangrenosum associated with inflammatory bowel disease. Report of two cases with good response to infliximab. Reumatol Clin 2012;8:90–92 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Das SK, Banerjedd N, Khaskil S, Mukherjee SS. Pyoderma gangrenosum and high titer serum anti-CCP2 antibodies. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2012;52:36–39 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Andrisani G, Guidi L, Papa A, Potenza AE, Cervelli D, Armuzzi A. A case of pyoderma gangrenosum with ulcerative colitis treated with combined approach: infliximab and surgery. J Crohns Colitis 2013;7:421–426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Araújo FM, Kondo RN, Minelli L. Pyoderma gangrenosum: skin grafting and hyperbaric oxygen as adjuvants in the treatment of a deep and extensive ulcer. Ann Bras Dermatol 2013;88(Suppl 1):176–178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Mowlds DS, Kim JJ, Murphy P, Wirth GA. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a case report of bilateral dorsal hand lesions and literature review of management. Can J Plast Surg 2013;21:239–242 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Lee HS, Choi YR, Ha SH, Jeong JJ. Pyoderma gangrenosum mimicking a diabetic foot infection: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg 2013;52:67–71 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Mooij JE, van Rappard DC, Mekkes JR. Six patients with pyoderma gangrenosum successfully treated with infliximab. Int J Dermatol 2013;52:1418–1420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Leonard C, Khan K. Pyoderma Gangrenosum: the role of surgical treatment. Ulster Med J 2013;82:38–39 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164. Ratnagobal S, Sinha S. Pyoderma gangrenosum: guideline for wound practitioners. J Wound Care 2013;22:68–73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165. Fakhar F, Memon S, Deitz D, Abramowitz R, Alpert DR. Refractory postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum in a patient with Beckwith Wiedemann syndrome: response to multimodal therapy. BMJ Case Rep 2013. DOI: 10.1336/bcr-2013-201084 [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Aydin S, Aydin CA, Fünör U, et al. Recurrent pyoderma gangrenosum after cesarean delivery successfully treated with vacuum-assisted closure and split thickness skin graft. A case report. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015;41:635–639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Ye MJ, Ye JM. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a review of clinical features and outcomes of 23 cases requiring inpatient management. Dermatol Res Pract 2014;2014:461467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168. Richmond NA, Lamel SA, Braun LR, Vivas AC, Serena T, Kirsner RS. Epidermal grafting using a novel suction blister-harvesting system for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. JAMA Dermatol 2014;150:999–1000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Tay DZ, Tan KW, Tay YK. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a commonly overlooked ulcerative condition. J Family Med Prim Care 2014;3:374–378 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Novo-Torres A, Céspedes-Guirao FJ, Restituyo NG, Lorda-Barraguer E. Management of pyoderma gangrenosum with combination of systemic treatment, vacuum-assisted closure and synthetic dermal substitute. Eur J Plast Surg 2015;39:297–302 [Google Scholar]
- 171. Snyder RJ, Ead J, Glick B, Cuffy C. Dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane as adjunctive therapy in the multidisciplinary treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum: a case report. Ostomy Wound Manage 2015;61:40–49 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172. Cicuto B, Cheriyan T, Rudnicki P, Guo L. Post reconstruction breast pyoderma gangrenosum: early recognition and prosthesis salvage. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3:e434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173. Soncini JA, Grassi Salles A, Frizzo Neto JA, Gemperli R. Successful treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum after augmentation mastopexy using vacuum therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4:e1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174. Leitsch S, Koban KC, Pototschnig A, Titze V, Giunta RE. Multimodal therapy of ulcers on the dorsum of the hand with exposed tendons caused by pyoderma gangrenosum. Wounds 2016;28:E10–E13 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. Zaugg P, Koch N, Erba P, Raffoul W. Pyoderma gangrenosum, an etiology of chronic ulcer disregarded? [in French]. Rev Med Suisse 2016;12:318–321 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Patel DK, Locke M, Jarrett P. Pyoderma gangrenosum with pathergy: a potentially significant complication following breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017;70:884–892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Hradil E, Jeppsson C, Hamnerius N, Svensson Å. The diagnosis you wish you had never operated on: pyoderma gangrenosum misdiagnosed as necrotizing fasciitis-a case report. Acta Orthop 2017;88:231–233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178. Yamaguchi Y, Yanagi T, Sato K, et al. Portable negative-pressure wound therapy for pyoderma gangrenosum: report of two cases. J Dermatol 2018;45:483–486 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179. Soro-García J, García-Fontán EM, Carrasco-Rodríguez R, Blanco-Ramos M, Cañizares-Carretero MA. Atypical pyoderma gangrenosum simulating pectoral abscess managed using negative pressure wound therapy. Rev Port Pneumol (2006) 2017;23:306–307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180. Domej MA, Pauzenberger L, Heuberer PR, Anderl W. Pyoderma gangraenosum after implantation of a shoulder endoprothesis [in German]. Orthopade 2017;46:963–968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181. Tanini S, Calugi G, Russo GL. Combination of negative pressure wound therapy and systemic steroid therapy in postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum after reduction mammoplasty; a case of proven efficacy and safety. Dermatol Reports 2017;9:7209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182. Riyaz N, Mary V, Sasidharanpillai S, et al. Pyoderma gangrenosum: a clinico-epidemiological study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2017;83:33–39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183. Asyyed Z, Al-Youha S, LeBlanc M. Pyoderma gangrenosum of the breast after mastopexy. Wounds 2018;30:E52–E56 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184. Choi YJ, Yoo WH. Pyoderma gangrenosum masquerading as an ulcer related to antiphospholipid antibodies in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2018;27:2174–2176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185. Ehrl DC, Heidekrueger PI, Broer PN. Pyoderma gangrenosum after breast surgery: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71:1023–1032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186. Gupta AS, Nunley JR, Feldman MJ, Ortega-Loayza AG. Pyoderma gangrenosum of the scalp: a rare clinical variant. Wounds 2018;30:E16–E20 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187. Schwaiger K, Russe E, Kholosy H, et al. Reconstructive microsurgical approach for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71:44–52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188. Yu YM, Lai FJ, Feng C, Chen BL, Cao YS. Pyoderma gangrenosum around an ileostoma: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e13415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189. Romanelli M, Janowska A, Oranges T, Dini V. Skin grafting in pyoderma gangrenosum. Eplasty 2018;18:ic11.. eCollection 2018. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190. Zheng W, Zhao X, Feng J, Huang H. Successful treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with skin grafting in a patient with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Dermatol Surg 2020;46:421–423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191. Dillingham CS, Jorizzo J. Managing ulcers associated with pyoderma gangrenosum with a urinary bladder matrix and negative-pressure wound therapy. Adv Skin Wound Care 2019;32:70–76 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192. Yang SS, Jiang SG, Tudeng DCC, Ni Z, Xiao CZ. One case of pyoderma gangrenosum in the lower limbs in Tibetan Plateau treated with vacuum sealing drainage combined with irrigation of oxygen loaded fluid [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi 2019;35:69–71 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193. Sousa M, Campos MA, Sousa AC, Lopes J, Rodrigues A, Carvalho J. Extensive refractory perineal pyoderma gangrenosum treated with infliximab, fecal diversion, and negative-pressure wound therapy. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2020;27:128–131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194. Shen J, Zhang W, Jiang X. Pyoderma gangrenosum after cesarean section treated with skin graft: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e15380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195. Borda LJ, Jaller JA, Kirsner RS. Absence of donor-site pathergy following fractional autologous full-thickness skin grafting in pyoderma gangrenosum. Br J Dermatol 2019;181:847–848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196. Grado Sanz R, Conde-Montero E, Pérez Jerónimo L, et al. Clinically inactive pyoderma gangrenosum successfully treated with negative pressure therapy and punch grafting. Int Wound J 2020;17:516–518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197. Ishikawa K, Minamimoto T, Mizuki T, Furukawa H. Surgical management of extensive peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum associated with colon cancer. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2015;42:102–105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198. Larcher L, Schwaiger K, Eisendle K, et al. Aesthetic breast augmentation mastopexy followed by post-surgical pyoderma gangrenosum (PSPG): clinic, treatment, and review of the literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015;39:506–513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199. Pichler M, Larcher L, Holzer M, et al. Surgical treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with negative pressure wound therapy and split thickness skin grafting under adequate immunosuppression is a valuable treatment option: case series of 15 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74:760–765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200. Pichler M, Thuile T, Gatscher B, et al. Systematic review of surgical treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with negative pressure wound therapy or skin grafting. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017;31:e61–e67 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]




