Open AccessReflectance confocal microscopy vs. standardized skin surface biopsy for measuring the density of Demodex mites
Author(s) -
Turgut Erdemir A.,
Gurel M. S.,
Koku Aksu A. E.,
Bilgin Karahalli F.,
Incel P.,
Kutlu Haytoğlu N. S.,
Falay T.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
skin research and technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.521
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1600-0846
pISSN - 0909-752X
DOI - 10.1111/srt.12137
Subject(s) - demodex , demodex folliculorum , mite , demodicosis , confocal , dermatology , erythema , biopsy , eyelid , medicine , blepharitis , skin biopsy , pathology , biology , surgery , botany , geometry , mathematics
Background Reflectance confocal microscopy ( RCM ) has been recently shown to be effective for measuring the Demodex mite density. Objectives To compare and demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of standardized skin surface biopsy ( SSSB ) and RCM for measuring the density of Demodex mites. Materials and methods Forty‐eight patients (30 female, 18 male) and 47 healthy controls (30 female, 17 male) were enrolled in the study. The patients diagnoses were pityriasis folliculorum ( n = 40), papulopustulary rosecea ( n = 7) and erythema‐telengiectatic rosacea ( n = 1). The area with the most intense erythema on the right cheek was selected for imaging with RCM (VivaScope 3000) and SSSB . Results Forty‐two patients demonstrated high Demodex density [(Dd) > 5 mites/cm 2 ] with SSSB (85.7%). RCM identified demodicosis in 48 patients (100%). The mean Dd measured with RCM (409.8 ± 209.2) was significantly higher than SSSB (15.33 ± 18.1) ( P < 0.001). In the patients, RCM demonstrated the mean number of mites 40.90 ± 20.9 and 4.11 ± 6.4 in the controls per 10 mm 2 area. The corresponding mean number of 2.63 ± 0.77 mites was detected in the infested follicles per area of view compared to a mean of 0.77 ± 0.98 mites in the infested follicles in the controls ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Reflectance confocal microscopy is a fast, direct and noninvasive method for Demodex‐associated diseases and it is superior to SSSB for Demodex mite detection.