Comparative Clinical Efficacy between Electrodesiccation with Curettage and Application of 80% Phenol Solution in Treatment of Common Warts

  • Dina Arwina Dalimunthe Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine, Sumatera Utara University
  • Remenda Siregar Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine, Sumatera Utara University
  • Chairiyah Tanjung Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine, Sumatera Utara University
Keywords: Common warts, Electrodesiccation, Phenol, Efficacy, Treatment outcome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Common warts are skin diseases caused by human papillomavirus. Several treatment modalities available for common warts, two of them are electrodesiccation with curettage and application of 80% phenol solution.

AIM: This study aims to compare clinical efficacy between these two modalities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: the Open clinical trial was conducted at Dr.Pirngadi General Hospital Medan and H.Adam Malik General Hospital Medan from February to June 2013 on 17 patients with multiple common warts. Both treatments began and applied simultaneously on the same day on each patient.

RESULTS: Cure rate was higher in electrodesiccation with curettage (76.5%, 100%) compared to the application of 80% phenol solution (11.8%, 64.7%) on three weeks and six weeks of follow up. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference of common warts cure rate between electrodesiccation with curettage and application of 80% phenol solution after three weeks (p < 0.001) and six weeks (p = 0.018) of treatment.

CONCLUSION: As a conclusion, electrodesiccation with curettage has higher cure rate than the application of 80% phenol solution on the treatment of common warts. Further study is needed to find out the best concentration and time interval for application of phenol solution to improve its clinical efficacy as an alternative treatment of choice for common warts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

James WD, Berger TG, Elston DM. Andrews' Diseases of the skin. Clinical Dermatology, 10th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Saunders Elsevier, 2006:367-420. PMid:17007093

Berman B, Weinstein A. Treatment of warts. Dermatologic Therapy. 2000; 13: 290-304. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8019.2000.00031.x

Habif TP. Clinical Dermatology. A colour guide to diagnosis and therapy, 4th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Mosby, 2004:368-408.

Micali G, Oglio FD, Nasca MR, Tedeschi A. Management of cutaneous warts, An evidence-based approach. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004; 5(5):311-7. https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200405050-00004 PMid:15554732

Yelverton CB. Warts. In: K. A. Arndt, & J. T. S. Hsu (Ed). Manual of dermatology theurapeutic 7th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007:233-42.

Androphy EJ, Lowy DR. Warts. In: K. Wolff, L. A. Goldsmith, S. I. Katz, B. A. Gilchrest, A. S. Paller, D. J. Leffell (Ed). Fitzpatrick's dermatology in general medicine, 7th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2008:1914-23.

Gibbs S, Harvey I. Topical treatment for cutaneous warts (Review). The Cochrane collaboration. 2009; 3: 1-86.

Gibbs S, Harvey I, Sterling J, Stark R. Local treatment for cutaneous warts: systematic review. BMJ. 2002; 325:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7362.461

State Medical Examining and Licensing Boards. Chicago: Press of the American Medical Association, 1913.

Butler GF. A text-book of Materia Medica, Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1908.

Banihashemi M, Pezeshkpoor F, Yazdanpanah MJ, Family S. Efficacy of 80% phenol solution in comparation with cryotherapy in the treatment of common warts of hand. Singapore Med J. 2008; 49(12):1035-7. PMid:19122958

Al-Mutairi N, AlKhalaf M. Mucocutaneous warts in children: clinical presentations, risk factors, and response to treatment. Acta Dermatovenerologica. 2012; 21:69-72.

Bruggink SC, Ekhof JAH, Egberts PF, van Blijswijk SCE, Assendelft WJJ, Gussekloo J. Warts Transmitted in Families and Schools: A Prospective Cohort. Pediatrics. 2013; 131:928-34. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2946 PMid:23610204

Bruggink SC, de Koning MNC, Gussekloo J, Egberts PF, Schegget J, Feltkamp MCW, Eekhof JAH. Cutaneous warts-associated HPV types: Prevalence and relation with patient characteristic. Journal of Clinical Virology. 2012; 55: 250-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2012.07.014 PMid:22884670

Kilkenny M, Merlin K, Young R, Marks R. The prevalence of common skin condition in Australian school student: Common, plane and plantar warts. British Journal of Dermatology. 1998; 138:840-5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02222.x PMid:9666831

Silverberg JI, Silverberg NB. The US prevalence of common warts in childhood: a population-based study. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2013; 131:2788-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2013.226 PMid:23657500

Theng TSC, Goh BK, Chong WS, Chan YC, Giam YC. Viral warts in children seen at a tertiary referral center. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004; 33: 53-6. PMid:15008563

Ginting O. Perbandingan efektivitas pengobatan veruka di kulit dengan kuretase saja dan kuretase disertai elektrodesikasi. Medan, Indonesia: Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Sumatera Utara, 1988.

Published
2018-02-11
How to Cite
1.
Dalimunthe DA, Siregar R, Tanjung C. Comparative Clinical Efficacy between Electrodesiccation with Curettage and Application of 80% Phenol Solution in Treatment of Common Warts. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2018Feb.11 [cited 2020Nov.29];6(2):326-9. Available from: https://www.id-press.eu/mjms/article/view/oamjms.2018.074
Section
B - Clinical Sciences