Ralf Dieckmann1, Ides Boone, Stefan O Brockmann, Jens A Hammerl, Annette Kolb-Mäurer, Matthias Goebeler, Andreas Luch, Sascha Al Dahouk. 1. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Biological Safety, Berlin, Regional Public Health Office, Department for Infection Control, Reutlingen, University Hospital Würzburg, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Würzburg, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Berlin, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Clinic for Gastroenterology, Metabolic Disorders and Internal Intensive Medicine (Medical Clinic III), Aachen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tattooing is a globally growing trend. Overall prevalence among adults in industrialized countries is around 10-20%. Given the high and increasing numbers of tattooed people worldwide, medical and public health implications emerging from tattooing trends require greater attention not only by the public, but also by medical professionals and health policy makers. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature on tattooassociated bacterial infections and bacterial contamination of tattoo inks. Furthermore, we surveyed tattoo inks sampled during an international tattoo convention in Germany to study their microbial status. RESULTS: Our systematic review identified 67 cases published between 1984 and 2015, mainly documenting serious bacterial infectious complications after intradermal deposition of tattoo inks. Both local skin infections (e.g. abscesses, necrotizing fasciitis) and systemic infections (e.g. endocarditis, septic shock) were reported. Published bacteriological surveys showed that opened as well as unopened tattoo ink bottles frequently contained clinically relevant levels of bacteria indicating that the manufactured tattoo product itself may be a source of infection. In our bacteriological survey, two of 39 colorants were contaminated with aerobic mesophilic bacteria. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate hygiene measures in tattoo parlors and non-medical wound care are major risk factors for tattoo-related infections. In addition, facultative pathogenic bacterial species can be isolated from tattoo inks in use, which may pose a serious health risk.
BACKGROUND: Tattooing is a globally growing trend. Overall prevalence among adults in industrialized countries is around 10-20%. Given the high and increasing numbers of tattooed people worldwide, medical and public health implications emerging from tattooing trends require greater attention not only by the public, but also by medical professionals and health policy makers. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature on tattooassociated bacterial infections and bacterial contamination of tattoo inks. Furthermore, we surveyed tattoo inks sampled during an international tattoo convention in Germany to study their microbial status. RESULTS: Our systematic review identified 67 cases published between 1984 and 2015, mainly documenting serious bacterial infectious complications after intradermal deposition of tattoo inks. Both local skin infections (e.g. abscesses, necrotizing fasciitis) and systemic infections (e.g. endocarditis, septic shock) were reported. Published bacteriological surveys showed that opened as well as unopened tattoo ink bottles frequently contained clinically relevant levels of bacteria indicating that the manufactured tattoo product itself may be a source of infection. In our bacteriological survey, two of 39 colorants were contaminated with aerobic mesophilic bacteria. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate hygiene measures in tattoo parlors and non-medical wound care are major risk factors for tattoo-related infections. In addition, facultative pathogenic bacterial species can be isolated from tattoo inks in use, which may pose a serious health risk.
Authors: Mary E Stemper; Jennifer M Brady; Salah S Qutaishat; Gwen Borlaug; James Reed; Kurt D Reed; Sanjay K Shukla Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Anita Gębska-Kuczerowska; Izabela Kucharska; Agnieszka Segiet-Święcicka; Marcin Kuczerowski; Robert Gajda Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.390