Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
Case Report
2013:79:2;231-234
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.107644

Tattoo reactions-An epidemic on the surge: A report of 3 cases

Swapnil A Sanghavi, Atul M Dongre, Uday S Khopkar
 Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India

Correspondence Address:
Swapnil A Sanghavi
Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel-400 012, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
How to cite this article:
Sanghavi SA, Dongre AM, Khopkar US. Tattoo reactions-An epidemic on the surge: A report of 3 cases. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2013;79:231-234
Copyright: (C)2013 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Abstract

Tattooing has been practiced in India since ancient era. It has tremendous religious and spiritual significance. In addition, tattooing for cosmetic purposes has become quite popular in recent times. With this increasing trend, there is also an increased risk of adverse effects. Here, we have described two cases of lichenoid reaction developing to red ink in double- colored tattoos and a case of sarcoidal reaction to green tattoo.
Keywords: Green tattoo, lichenoid reaction, red tattoo, sarcoidal reaction, tattoo reactions

Introduction

Tattooing has been practiced in India since ancient era. It has tremendous religious and spiritual significance. In addition, tattooing for cosmetic purposes has become quite popular in recent times. With this increasing trend, there is also an increased risk of adverse effects. Cutaneous reactions to tattoos are uncommonly reported in literature. They are generally attributed to the metallic salts used in the preparation of the pigment. Allergic reactions to a particular pigment can manifest in several ways including allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergic dermatitis. Here, we have described two cases of lichenoid reaction developing to red ink in double-colored tattoos and a case of sarcoidal reaction to green tattoo.

Case Reports

Case 1

A 23-year-old male presented with complaints of itchy red raised lesions over a tattoo on his left arm. The tattoo was injected 3 weeks back. The patient had no history of any tattoos injected in the past. On examination, shiny erythematous nodules and plaques with superficial scaling were seen over areas where the red ink was originally present. The red ink was completely masked by the lesions, while the green ink was uninvolved [Figure - 1].

Figure 1: Indurated nodules over the red component of the tattoo. Green ink is spared

Case 2

A 30-year-old male complained of itching, followed by appearance of red raised lesions over the tattoo on his right forearm. The tattoo was injected at a local parlor 4 weeks back. On examination, shiny erythematous papules and plaques along with scaling were seen over the site of red ink, which was completely masked. The green ink in the tattoo was not affected [Figure - 2].

Figure 2: Scaly erythematous plaques over the red ink with sparing of the green component

Biopsies were taken from scaly erythematous plaques in both patients. It showed parakeratosis and moderate acanthosis with mild spongiosis of the epidermis. The dermoepidermal junction showed vacuolar degeneration. The dermis showed a lichenoid infiltrate consisting of lymphocytes and histocytes [Figure - 3] and [Figure - 4], suggesting diagnosis of lichenoid reaction to tattoo pigment.

Figure 3: Histopathology of Case 1 showing vacuolar degeneration with lichenoid infiltrate consisting of lymphocytes and histocytes. (H and E, ×40, inset ×400)
Figure 4: Histopathology of Case 2 showing lichenoid infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction consisting of lymphocytes and histiocytes (H and E, ×40, inset ×400)

Both the patients were prescribed topical fluticasone cream 0.05% for local application in addition to oral anti-histamines. Q switched Nd YAG laser could not be tried due to its non availability.

Case 3

A 25-year-old female presented with a complaint of raised lesion over her left forearm since past 1 week. The lesion appeared over the site of a tattoo that was injected 2 years back. She also developed multiple red raised asymptomatic lesions over right upper and lower extremities. She had no history of cough, breathlessness, or redness of eyes. On examination, an indurated painless nodule was seen over a green tattoo on her left forearm [Figure - 5]. Also, multiple erythematous indurated nodules were present over right upper and lower limbs. Interestingly, another tattoo over the right forearm was unaffected [Figure - 5].

Figure 5: Indurated plaque over green tattoo on the forearm, while tattoo over the other forearm is spared. Erythematous nodules over non tattooed skin can also be seen

Biopsy from the lesion on the tattoo showed the presence of non-caseating epithelioid granulomas surrounded by a sparse lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis. The tattoo pigment was seen in the dermis [Figure - 6]. On further investigations, her chest X-ray showed perihilar and paratracheal lymphadenopathy. The serum ACE levels were raised, suggesting diagnosis of systemic sarcoidosis.

Figure 6: Histopathology showing the presence of non caseating epithelioid granulomas surrounded by a sparse lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis. Tattoo pigment can also be visualized (H and E, ×40, inset ×400)

The patient was referred to chest medicine department for further management and was lost to follow-up.

Discussion

Tattoo colors consist of inorganic pigments, organic dyes, or a combination of both. In the past, it appears that heavy metals, that were the backbone of tattooing for decades, have been replaced by organic colorants. [1]

Tattoo artists use various pigment compounds to create different colors and hues. Depending upon the compounds used and the color of the tattoo, a variety of cutaneous reactions can be expected. The composition of ink used for professional and amateur tattoo differs significantly. For amateur tattoos, carbon particles are used, while for professional tattoos, a mixture of insoluble metals with organic dyes is used.

Cutaneous reactions to tattoo are not uncommon. Several histological reactions to tattoo ink have been described including pseudolymphomatous, lichenoid, granulomatous, scleroderma or morphea-like, sarcoidal, pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergy. [2] Lichenoid and sarcoidal reactions are both less common than eczematous reactions. Recently, a perforating granulomatous reaction to tattoo pigment was described. [3]

Pathogenic mechanisms implicated in reactions to tattoo pigments include a localized, T-cell mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response (lichenoid and sarcoidal reaction). In addition, allergic reactions have been observed in the form of type I and III reactions, according to Coombs and Gell classification. [4]

Cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions, although most common with red (mercuric sulphide) tattoos, have also been reported with other colors like yellow (cadmium sulphide), brown (iron oxide), blue (cobalt), purple (manganese), green (chromium), and black (carbon) tattoos. [1]

Allergic reactions are more frequently seen to red tattoos than other colors. This is reflected in a literature review of 17 case reports by Aberer et al.,[4] which showed that red ink was responsible for 11 out of 26 reactions reported. These reactions may occur within days of the tattoo application or up to 17 years later.

Lichenoid reactions are more frequently reported with red pigment tattooing that contains mercury. Clinically, verrucous papules or plaques characteristic of hyperkeratotic lichen planus are usually seen. [5] However, both our patients presented with erythematous and indurated plaques with mild scaling, but showed the characteristic lichenoid pattern on biopsy, which is rare.

Sarcoidosis has been suggested to be a state of granulomatous hypersensitivity, with reactions to different antigens in a variety of organs. In 1955, Obermayer and Hassen [6] reported the first case of a sarcoidal reaction within a tattoo attributed to be a manifestation of systemic sarcoidosis. Since then, multiple cases have been described, most occurring in association with hilar adenopathy and pulmonary sarcoidosis. In 14 of 19 cases, tattoo reactions subsequently led to the diagnosis of systemic sarcoidosis, as in our patient. [7] Sarcoidal reaction to tattoo pigment is commonly described. It is a hypersensitivity reaction (type 4) that is localized to the tattooed area without the systemic manifestations of sarcoidosis.

Diagnosis of lichenoid or sarcoidal reaction is based on clinical and histopathological correlation. Patch testing done to detect such reactions are often negative in comparison to eczematous reactions that are usually patch test positive. [1] As various compounds are used to form different colors and hues, e.g., cadmium sulfide, titanium, aluminum, silicon, and calcium, identifying the individual component responsible for a tattoo reaction can be complicated. X-ray microanalysis of red pigment in patients with cutaneous reaction to red tattoo has demonstrated variety of other metals like aluminium, iron, calcium, titanium, silicon, and cadmium which though rare, may cause reactions. [8]

Currently data is lacking regarding the safety of tattoo pigment ingredients. Also, none of the tattoo ink or additives are FDA approved. As mercury present in red tattoos is known as a common cause for cutaneous reactions, mercury-free dyes such as cadmium red (cadmium selenide), senna, red ochre (ferric hydrate), and organic vegetable dyes like sandalwood or brazilwood are being used.

Steroids, laser therapy, and excision are the backbone of treatment for allergic reactions to tattoos.

Reactions to tattoos are increasingly being encountered in clinical dermatological practice. It is important for dermatologists to be aware of these reactions as their occurrence is bound to rise in future with increasing popularity of tattooing as a body art.

References
1.
Kaur RR, Kirby W, Maibach H. Cutaneous allergic reactions to tattoo ink. J Cosmet Dermatol 2009;8:295-300.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Ortiz AE, Alster TS. Rising concern over cosmetic tattoos. Dermatol Surg 2012;38:424-9.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Sweeney SA, Hicks LD, Ranallo N, Iv NS, Soldano AC. Perforating granulomatous dermatitis reaction to exogenous tattoo pigment: A case report and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol 2011. [In press]
[Google Scholar]
4.
Aberer W, Snauwaert JE, Render UM. Allergic reaction to pigments and metals. In: Christa De Cuyper, editor. Dermatologic complications with body art: Tattoos, piercings and permanent makeup, 1 st ed. Belgium: Springer link; 2010. p. 66-73.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Winkelmann RK, Harris RB. Lichenoid delayed hypersensitivity reactions in tattoos. J Cutan Pathol 1979;6:59-65.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Obermeyer ME, Hassen M. Sarcoidosis with sarcoidal reaction in tattoo. Arch Dermatol 1955;71:766.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Antonovich DD, Callen JP. Development of sarcoidosis in cosmetic tattoos. Arch Dermatol 2005;141:869-72.
[Google Scholar]
8.
Sowden JM, Cartwright PH, Smith AG, Hiley C, Slater DN. Sarcoidosis presenting with a granulomatous reaction confined to red tattoo. Clin Exp Dermatol 1992;17:446-8.
[Google Scholar]
Show Sections