More than 70 million surgical procedures are performed annually in the USA with the majority involving a skin lesion and almost all individuals in their lifetime will have one or more surgical procedures resulting in scars. Patients and physicians alike are thereby motivated to improve the cosmetic outcome of scars. Prior studies have shown that the pulsed dye laser (PDL) is effective in improving the quality and appearance of the scar when using the 585-nm PDL immediately after the removal of sutures. Most published studies used a pulse duration of 450 micros, which along with the other study parameters, has led to an overall improvement of the scars. However, a pulse duration of 1.5 ms is also available when using the pulsed dye laser and it should theoretically cause fewer side-effects. To our knowledge, there are no other studies comparing the effectiveness of different pulse durations in the treatment of surgical scars starting on the day of suture removal. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of different pulse durations (450 micros vs. 1.5 ms) in the treatments of postsurgical linear scars immediately after suture removal when using the 585-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL). Twenty non-hospitalized male and female patients (older than 18 years of age) with skin types I-IV and with postoperative linear scars measuring at least 2.1 cm were enrolled in this prospective study. Scars were randomly divided into three equal sections. The different fields were randomly chosen to receive treatment (two out of three fields) or remain as control (one field). The two fields chosen to be treated received treatment with the 585-nm PDL using a 7-mm spot size at 4.0 J. One of the treated sections was randomly selected to receive a pulse duration of 450 micros, and the other section to receive a 1.5-ms pulse. The remaining scar section was designated as control (no treatment). The three sections were mapped and recorded. The patient received treatment immediately after the sutures were removed from the wound and then monthly for 3 months. Evaluations were performed before each treatment and 1 month after the last treatment. The short-pulse and long-pulse 585-nm PDL-treated sections demonstrated a statistically significant overall average improvement of the VSS of 92 and 89%, respectively, compared to 67% for the control site (Fig. 1). Further, for individual parameters of the Vancouver scar scale (VSS), there were significant (p < 0.05) differences between control and treatment groups for all parameters, but there were no differences between the short- and long-pulse treatment groups for any parameter. Both short-pulse and long-pulse PDL are safe and effective in improving the quality and cosmetic appearance of surgical scars in skin type's I-IV starting on the day of suture removal with no significant difference between the two pulse durations.

No abstract

No abstract

Good Syndrome is an adult-onset combined immunodeficiency defined by hypogammaglobulinemia, low or absent number of B cells, T cell deficiency and thymic tumor. We have characterized CD8+ T cells from a patient with Good syndrome that presented with CD8+T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia (LGL). Characterization of peripheral blood CD8+ T cells revealed that majority of CD8+ T cells were terminally differentiated effector memory phenotype (TEMRA; CD8+CCR7-CD45RA+), and were PD-1high (CD279), ICOSlow (CD278), and granzymehigh. Almost all CD8+ T cells were IFN-γ+. CD8 Treg (CD8+CD183+CCR7+CD45RA-) were decreased. TEMRA phenotype along with CD279high, demonstrates that these are exhausted CD8+ T cells. This phenotype along with CD278low may also explain severe T cell functional deficiency in our patient. In the present patient, T-LGL appears to be a clonal expansion of CD279+granzyme+IFN-γ+CD8+TEMRA cells. To best of our knowledge this is the first case of CD8+T-cell LGL leukemia associated with Good syndrome.

Although severe reactions to immunoglobulin preparations have been frequently reported, IgE antibodies against IgA are usually not investigated; and occur predominantly in previously sensitized patients. The purpose is to report anaphylaxis to IGIV during initial infusion in a patient with common variable immunodeficiency with absent IgA without prior sensitization and in the absence of detectable IgG anti-IgA antibodies, and positive skin tests for immediate hypersensitivity to four different preparations of IGIV, one subcutaneous immunoglobulin preparation, and to purified IgA. Patient was treated without side effects with IGIV preparation depleted of IgA to which immediate hypersensitivity skin test was negative.This case demonstrates that patients with CVID with no IgA and without prior exposure to immunoglobulin or plasma may develop anaphylaxis following initial infusion of IGIV, which appears to be due to IgE anti-IgA, and independent of IgG anti-IgA antibodies. Since there is no good correlation between anaphylaxis/anaphylactic reactions and IgG anti-IgA antibodies, and IgE anti-IgA antibody test is commercially unavailable, we suggest that the patients with CVID with absence of IgA might be skin tested for immediate hypersensitivity prior to initiation of immunoglobulin administration. However, such recommendation may require studies on a large number of patients with CVID with no detectable IgA.