Literature DB >> 36092195

Clinical and Pathological Features of Persistent Decorative Tattoo Reactions.

José M Suárez-Peñaranda1,2, Carmen Fachal3, Maria Blanco-Bellas4, Manuel Ginarte5, Benigno Monteagudo6, Alvaro León7, Fernando González-Carril8.   

Abstract

Persistent, non-infectious medical complications arising from decorative tattoos have increased considerably. They are difficult to characterize clinically, and histopathology shows a wide variety of overlapping patterns, with lichenoid and granulomatous dermatitis being the most common findings. Both clinical and pathological findings are difficult to ascribe to particular ink colour. The findings in 30 biopsies from 28 patients with persistent reactions in decorative tattoos are reported, including immunohistochemical findings. Copyright:
© 2022 Indian Journal of Dermatology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decorative-tattoos; histopathology patterns; lichenoid reactions: Granulomatous reactions; local therapy; non-infectious complications

Year:  2022        PMID: 36092195      PMCID: PMC9455136          DOI: 10.4103/ijd.ijd_951_21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Dermatol        ISSN: 0019-5154            Impact factor:   1.757


Introduction

In Western countries, about 10-20% of the population have at least one decorative tattoo and this percentage increases in youngsters.[12] Although tattoos-derived complications are rather common, persistent reactions are far less frequent and involve only 6-10% of tattoos.[23] Hypersensitivity reactions, usually reported in association to red ink, are the most common type, while black is considered responsible for most non-allergic reactions.[1234] Histopathologically, lichenoid and granulomatous reactions or non-specific inflammation have been described as the most frequent patterns, but the clinical and pathological correlation is not easily assessed.[256] We have reviewed the clinical, pathological and immunohistochemical features in 30 samples from 28 patients who were submitted to skin biopsy for non-infectious, persistent tattoo-related complications.

Material and Methods

We have retrieved 30 biopsies from 28 patients with persistent hypersensitivity reactions in decorative skin tattoos, defined according to previous papers[3] as non-infectious, chronic and persistent (over a week) lesions, usually restricted to a specific colour, which develop from immediately to years after tattooing. Immunohistochemistry was performed with antibodies against CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD68 (PGM-1), CD123 and CD138 (All prediluted FLEX Ready to use, Agilent-Dako, Santa Clara, USA), with automatised equipment (Omnis, Agilent-Dako, Santa Clara, USA) and staining was revealed with EnVision.

Results

The total number of patients comprised 20 females and 8 males, with ages ranging from 18 to 67 years [Table 1].
Table 1

Summary of clinical findings, treatment and evolution of lesions

Case nºAge/SexLocationTime since tattooing (months)Color involvedClinical descriptionEvolution
1F/24Left shoulder24RedPruritic, erythematous papular lesionsImprovement with local steroids treatment but lesions relapse after withdrawal. Follow-up lost after 1 year
2F/31Left arm6RedPruritic, erythematous papular lesionsTemporary improvement with local tacrolimus and steroids, but lesions relapse. Follow-up lost after 2 years
3M/39Right armUnknownBlackIndurated plaqueImprovement with local steroids treatment. Follow-up lost after 5 months.
4F/22Unknown3RedPruritic, erythematous and poorly defined areas. Partial tattoo regressionImprovement after local steroids infiltration. Tattoo removal.
5F/25Unknown3RedNon-descript inflammationLost follow-up before treatment
6F/25Left forearm0.5RedDesquamative, papular lesions and erythematous plaquesCultures positive for Staphylococcus aureus. Slight improvement with antibiotics. Lost follow-up
7F/27Right ankle13RedPruritusImprovement after local steroids infiltration but lesions relapse. Lost follow-up
8F/27Ankle36BlackIndurated plaqueSlight improvement with topical steroids after 5 months.
9F/38Wrist7RedPruritic indurated plaqueNo treatment. No follow-up.
10F/18Right footUnknownRedPruritic, desquamative and indurated lesionsUnknown
11M/55UnknownUnknownRedPapular lesionsUnknown
12F/20neck6RedHyperkeratotic and nodular areasImprovement after local steroids infiltration. Lost follow-up
13M/35Left forearmUnknownBlackUnknownNo treatment. Died of uterine cervix cancer
14V/19UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
15V/36Left temporalUnknownBlackBlack papular lesion. AneurismRemoval.
16M/31Leg (side??)6RedPruritic, raised lesions.Local corticosteroid injection. Residual Scar.
17V/67Left cheekUnknownBlueBluish discoloration.No treatment.
18M/31Right leg120RedBleeding lesion on top of tattoo.Removal
19V/34Right leg72Yelow/blackPruritus.Lost follow-up
20V/26Left wristUnknownYellowInflammatory and exudative lesionImprovement with local steroids
21V/57External malleolus12BlackNon-descript inflammation.Removal
22M/37Righ Shoulder48BlackIndurated and papular lesions in the last 2 monthsLocal steroids. Follow-up lost
23M/47EyebrowsAround 20 yearsYellow/blackPain and itching in eyebrowsUnknown
24F/25Right forearm1RedMultiple pruritic and desquamative papular lesionsImprove with topical steroids. Follow-up lost after 13 months
25F/29Left forearm3BrownPruritic plaquesCured with local steroids
26F/28Anterior neck5YellowIndurated areasSpontaneous involution after 6 months
27F/35Right ankle24BluePruritic and painful elevated lesionsRemoval
28F/56Left forearm60BlackPruritic elevated lesionsImprovement with local steroids
Summary of clinical findings, treatment and evolution of lesions Persistent reactions were limited to one tattoo and involved only one color, except for two cases affecting two colours. They were related with red colour in 15 patients, followed by black in 8, yellow in 3 and blue in 2. In two cases, lesions were both in yellow and black colours while for the remaining two, the involved colour was not recorded. They were more commonly papules or plaques (16 cases), followed by erythematous and desquamative lesions (7 cases), while others were labeled as nondescript inflammation [Figure 1]. Only one lesion was ulcerated. Pruritus and pain were specifically reported in eight and two cases, respectively, but more commonly patients complained of vague discomfort. The partial disappearance of the tattoo was noted in two cases. Latency from tattooing was recorded in 19 cases and it ranged from 2 weeks to 10 years. Eleven cases were treated with local steroidal injection, in one associated with topical tacrolimus, with only partial response to relapse weeks or months later, except for one patient with complete remission. Tattoo removal or ablative laser surgery was recommended in most cases, but it was recorded to be made in only two patients. Spontaneous regression was described in only one patient, after 6 months of symptoms. Follow-up was incomplete, and it was lost in all unresolved cases after 5 to 12 months.
Figure 1

Several examples of papulo-nodular lesions involving decorative tattoos. They are limited to one color (red or black) and only B shows superficial scaling

Several examples of papulo-nodular lesions involving decorative tattoos. They are limited to one color (red or black) and only B shows superficial scaling Biopsies showed variable, usually diffuse and very dense, mixed inflammatory dermal infiltrate, which extended to the reticular dermis in 28 cases but involved the subcutaneous fat tissue in only four, one reaching the underlying muscle. Distribution in the deep reticular dermis was usually perivascular, in contrast with the more diffuse distribution in the papillary dermis. Lymphocytes and macrophages were the predominant cells, and although other cell types were also present, they were never predominant. Plasma cells, noted in 12 cases (7/14 with red color, 2/7 with black, 2/3 with blue and 1/3 with yellow), were particularly abundant in a case of morphea-type sclerosis, but they were scarce in all the remaining cases. Eosinophils were present in only six cases (three with red colour). In three cases the infiltrate was considered a pseudolymphoma, given its density and diffuse deep involvement. Interface dermatitis, present in 17 cases [Figure 2], was not associated with any particular color. It was graded as severe in only five (three red and two black). Necrotic keratinocytes were present in 15 cases, but they were abundant in only one patient (with two biopsies) which showed also severe interface dermatitis.
Figure 2

Non-necrotizing granulomas (a and b) were common but only rarely the predominant inflammatory pattern. In two cases, collagen necrobiosis was extensive and transepidermal elimination was noted in one case (c and d)

Non-necrotizing granulomas (a and b) were common but only rarely the predominant inflammatory pattern. In two cases, collagen necrobiosis was extensive and transepidermal elimination was noted in one case (c and d) Granulomas were noted in 11 cases (4/14 with red colour, 3/3 with yellow, 2/7 with black, 1/3 blue and 1/2 yellow-black), but they were the main form of inflammation in only five cases, associated in two cases with yellow ink and with red, black and yellow in one case each [Figure 3]. A purely sarcoid-like granulomatous reaction pattern was not found. Two patients presented extensive dermal necrobiosis as the main histopathologic pattern [Figure 3] with marked collagen degeneration but without mucin deposition, one showing epidermal perforation. Finally, one patient presented with a scleroderma-like reaction.
Figure 3

Interface dermatitis with some lichenoid features was the most common histopathological finding (a). Immunohistochemistry demonstrated the presence of T-cells (b) as the main component, with different proportions of CD4 (c) and CD8 cells (d)

Interface dermatitis with some lichenoid features was the most common histopathological finding (a). Immunohistochemistry demonstrated the presence of T-cells (b) as the main component, with different proportions of CD4 (c) and CD8 cells (d) Immunohistochemistry demonstrated that T lymphocytes were predominant in all cases, with a diffuse or perivascular distribution. The proportion of CD4 and CD8 cells was usually similar, although in four cases the CD8 expression was more intense than CD4. B-cells were very scarce or completely absent, except for one case with a prominent granulomatous reaction. The presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells, stained with CD123, was almost negligible, and only in cases of granulomatous reaction, some isolated cells or small groups were noted. CD68 positive histiocytes were also present in most cases, diffusely intermingled with T lymphocytes, and they were more abundant in granulomatous reactions or cases showing a necrobiotic pattern.

Comments

Persistent reactions to decorative tattoos are a large and heterogeneous group of complications characterised by a variable latency period from tattooing to the beginning of clinical manifestations.[347] In our series, intervals ranged from 2 weeks to 10 years and once established, they were persistent without significant clinical fluctuations. The reason for latency is unknown, but it could be related to the local transformation of ink components or haptenisation, forming neoantigens recognised by immune cells which trigger a cytotoxic response.[37] The exact composition of tattoo stains is not well-known, and spectrophotometry has demonstrated traces of metals in proportions that exceed the usually considered safe limits.[178] Although red is the colour more commonly involved, other dyes may also be implicated, and they represented 50% of our cases. Clinical-pathological classification is difficult since clinical manifestations are often nonspecific and histologic patterns tend to overlap. It has been proposed[23] that plaque, hyperkeratotic and ulcer-necrotic patterns would be indicative of an allergic reaction, more commonly associated with red colour, in contrast with papular-nodular lesions, usually due to underlying pigment overload in black tattoos. Yet, in our cases, most lesions corresponded to multiple papules in one colour area, sometimes confluent or plaque-forming, not associated with any particular color. Although sometimes asymptomatic, tattoo reactions are usually referred to as pruritic or even painful. Nevertheless, in our series, pruritus was a complaint found in eight patients and pain in only two, probably indicating the wide spectrum of clinical manifestations and differences in intensity. According to previous reports, all our cases were confined to the tattooed areas of a certain colour, except for two cases, who presented lesions in yellow and black areas, pigments blending during the tattooing process being the most probable explanation. All lesions were limited to one tattoo suggesting a local reaction, inconsistent with the allergic nature usually proposed as their etiology. We have found interface lichenoid dermatitis as the most usual inflammatory reaction pattern, a common but not constant feature in previous papers.[4579] It has been described as indistinguishable from lichen planus but in our cases, the inflammation extends much deeper, involving the reticular dermis, is more polymorphic and shows perivascular arrangement at least focally, features not present in conventional lichen planus. The interpretation of this interface reaction is not clear: Initially considered allergic,[49] the presence of apoptotic keratinocytes and CD8 predominant response could suggest a cytotoxic mechanism.[7] Only a subset of patients develops adverse reactions involving the same color in other tattoos, which could be expectable if the allergy was the mechanism involved. Moreover, eosinophils are not conspicuous in most cases[47] which is unexpected in allergic cutaneous reactions. Necrobiotic granulomatosis is rarely reported as a tattoo complication and is most commonly associated with red colour.[410] was prominent in only two patients, one with transepidermal collagen elimination. None showed mucin deposition and were closer to necrobiotic granuloma (NG) than granuloma annulare, (GA). Several similar, but mucin deposits have not always been confirmed, and one case showed simultaneous features of GA and NL.[10] Possibly, this unusual form of tattoo-related reaction could show features intermediate between GA and NL and collagen damage would be related to persistent inflammatory reaction or directly inflicted by tattoo ink sub-products. None of our patients or previously reported cases developed lesions of GA elsewhere. Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and keratoacanthomas have rarely been reported as tattoo complications.[25] Five of our cases showed epidermal hyperplasia but not enough to raise the differential diagnosis with epidermal carcinoma. Epidermal atrophy was rarely present and, similar to hyperplasia, seemed to be merely a consequence of dermal inflammation. In summary, we report a series of patients with late adverse reactions to decorative tattoos. Clinically, lesions were non-specific and interface dermatitis with focal cytotoxic features is the predominant histopathological feature.

Ethics committee approval

Ethics Committee approval reference 2020/302.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  10 in total

Review 1.  Tattoo complaints and complications: diagnosis and clinical spectrum.

Authors:  Jørgen Serup; Katrina Hutton Carlsen; Mitra Sepehri
Journal:  Curr Probl Dermatol       Date:  2015-03-26

2.  Histopathology and immune histochemistry of red tattoo reactions. Interface dermatitis is the lead pathology, with increase in T-lymphocytes and Langerhans cells suggesting an allergic pathomechanism.

Authors:  T Høgsberg; B M Thomsen; J Serup
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 2.365

3.  The histopathologic spectrum of decorative tattoo complications.

Authors:  Michi M Shinohara; Jennifer Nguyen; Jennifer Gardner; Misha Rosenbach; Rosalie Elenitsas
Journal:  J Cutan Pathol       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 1.587

4.  Classification of Tattoo Complications in a Hospital Material of 493 Adverse Events.

Authors:  Jørgen Serup; Mitra Sepehri; Katrina Hutton Carlsen
Journal:  Dermatology       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 5.366

5.  [Tattoo skin reactions: Management and treatment algorithm].

Authors:  N Kluger
Journal:  Ann Dermatol Venereol       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 0.777

Review 6.  Necrobiotic granulomatous tattoo reaction: report of an unusual case showing features of both necrobiosis lipoidica and granuloma annulare patterns.

Authors:  Andrew Wood; Stuart A Hamilton; William A Wallace; Asok Biswas
Journal:  Am J Dermatopathol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.533

7.  Histopathological evaluation of cutaneous reactions to tattoos: Study at a tertiary care center.

Authors:  Pooja Agarwal; Ashish Jagati; Rupal Mehta; Priyanka Vadher; Santosh Rathod; Priyanka Bodar
Journal:  J Cutan Pathol       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 1.587

8.  Histopathology of Red Tattoo Reactions.

Authors:  Sebastiaan van der Bent; Ellen Oyen; Thomas Rustemeyer; Lies Jaspars; Rick Hoekzema
Journal:  Am J Dermatopathol       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 1.533

Review 9.  Adverse reactions after tattooing: review of the literature and comparison to results of a survey.

Authors:  Sabrina M Wenzel; Ines Rittmann; Michael Landthaler; Wolfgang Bäumler
Journal:  Dermatology       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 5.366

Review 10.  Medical Complications of Tattoos: A Comprehensive Review.

Authors:  Parvez S Islam; Christopher Chang; Carlo Selmi; Elena Generali; Arthur Huntley; Suzanne S Teuber; M Eric Gershwin
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 8.667

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.