alexa Stevens–Johnson syndrome | UK| PDF | PPT| Case Reports | Symptoms | Treatment

OMICS International organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Relevant Topics

Stevens–Johnson Syndrome

  • Stevens–Johnson syndrome

     Stevens–Johnson syndrome constitutes a dermatological emergency. Patients with documented Mycoplasma infections can be treated with oral macrolide or oral doxycycline. Initially, treatment is similar to that for patients with thermal burns, and continued care can only be supportive (e.g. intravenous fluids and nasogastric or parenteral feeding) and symptomatic (e.g., analgesic mouth rinse for mouth ulcer). Dermatologists and surgeons tend to disagree about whether the skin should be debrided. Beyond this kind of supportive care, no treatment for Stevens–Johnson syndrome is accepted.

  • Stevens–Johnson syndrome

     Treatment with corticosteroids is controversial. Early retrospective studies suggested corticosteroids increased hospital stays and complication rates. No randomized trials of corticosteroids were conducted for Stevens–Johnson syndrome, and it can be managed successfully without them. Other agents have been used, including cyclophosphamide and cyclosporin, but none has exhibited much therapeutic success. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has shown some promise in reducing the length of the reaction and improving symptoms. Other common supportive measures include the use of topical pain an aesthetics and antiseptics, maintaining a warm environment, and intravenous analgesics. An ophthalmologist should be consulted immediately, as Stevens–Johnson syndrome frequently causes the formation of scar tissue inside the eyelids, leading to corneal vascularization, impaired vision, and a host of other ocular problems.

  • Stevens–Johnson syndrome

     In the control group, 19 (28.8%) eyes showed grade 0, 13 (19.7%) eyes had grade 1, and grades 2 and 3 were present in 20 (30.3%) eyes and 14 (21.2%) eyes, respectively. Chi-square test showed a highly significant difference between the two groups (P.001).

Expert PPTs
Speaker PPTs

High Impact List of Articles

Conference Proceedings