Rapid, severe repigmentation of congenital melanocytic naevi after curettage and dermabrasion: histological features
ABSTRACT Curettage and dermabrasion are effective in treating giant congenital melanocytic naevi (GCMN). We report two patients with rapid, severe postoperative repigmentation. To the best of our knowledge this is the first report on the histological features of such patients.
We wish to call attention to histological features that may cause rapid, severe repigmentation after curettage and dermabrasion of medium to giant CMN.
From 1998 to 2002, we treated 23 patients with medium to giant CMN with curettage and dermabrasion. Patients being treated ranged in age from 1 month to 19 years. Histological samples were taken from the centre of naevi in all patients during surgery. Histological types were 12 intradermal and 11 compound. Follow-up after curettage lasted at least 3 years.
Among our 23 patients only two showed repigmentation soon after surgery. Histological sections from these two patients indicated naevoid cells in the deep dermis along hair follicles or sebaceous glands. However, no such pigmented naevoid cells along hair follicles were observed in samples from patients successfully treated with curettage and dermabrasion with less repigmentation.
Although we saw only two cases of repigmentation soon after curettage and dermabrasion, we suspect a correlation between pigmented naevoid cells around hair follicles and repigmentation. If histological sections of skin biopsies show pigmented cells along hair follicles in the deep dermis, other treatments such as total skin resection followed by skin grafting or tissue expansion may be better choices than curettage or dermabrasion.
SourceAvailable from: Eduardo Fonseca
Article: Controversias en el nevus congénito[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Congenital melanocytic nevi are very common lesions that nevertheless pose many controversial questions. A systematic review of the literature suggests that the risk of developing melanoma on giant congenital melanocytic nevi (GCMN) is lower than previously thought given that, in the most recent series of GCMN, only 2 % of patients developed melanoma and most did so before the age of 5 years. Therefore, prophylactic surgery should be considered on an individual basis according to the degree of clinical suspicion of melanoma and the esthetic and functional consequences.In extensive reviews of series of biopsies of melanoma, small congenital melanocytic nevi have been associated with 7 % to 8 % of cases. Many authors believe that these might represent a significant risk of malignant conversion from 10 years onwards and so recommend regular control visits during infancy and prophylactic exeresis in puberty.Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas 09/2009; 100(7). DOI:10.1016/S0001-7310(09)71903-9
Piel 03/2013; 28(3):129–133. DOI:10.1016/j.piel.2012.11.012
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Congenital melanocytic nevi remain a subject of controversy with respect to risk of malignant transformation and recommended management. Recent studies indicate a lower malignant risk (0.7 to 2.9 percent) than had previously been estimated. Surgery has not been proven to reduce malignant risk or improve quality of life, and may result in undesirable aesthetic and functional outcomes. In this article, the authors review key controversial issues in the management of congenital melanocytic nevi and re-evaluate indications for surgical treatment. An updated review of controversial topics in the management of congenital melanocytic nevi is presented, and clinical applications are demonstrated through clinical cases. Updates regarding the risks and outcomes of congenital melanocytic nevi patients open a renewed debate with respect to the indications for surgery as well as the extent of surgery that may be suitable. Treatment should be tailored to achieve optimal aesthetic results whereby complete nevus excision is not the goal. As such, nonsurgical management and incomplete nevus excision should be integrated as legitimate parts of any treatment algorithm.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 02/2014; 133(2):367-76. DOI:10.1097/01.prs.0000436852.32527.8a · 3.33 Impact Factor