Case Number : Case 137 Posted By: Guest

Phillip McKee - Overseas consultations (Sedona, Arizona,USA) Wrote:

You are all very good. The final diagnosis would require clinicopathological correlation but the lesion represents re-epithelialization of a blister in a patient with TEN. Have a great weekend. Phillip

Submitted on 17/12/2010 19:47
________________________________________

ANDREW DANCKWERTS - WITS UNIVERSITY, JOHANNESBURG (JOHANNESBURG, RSA) Wrote:

SUPRABASAL BLISTER WITH RE-EPITHELIALIZATION. THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS RESTS BETWEENEM AND TEN.

Submitted on 17/12/2010 19:19
________________________________________

Wayne Grayson - (Johannesburg, South Africa) Wrote:

Re-epithelialising subepidermal bulla surfaced by a non-viable epidermis. I think the main differential diagnosis is EM vs TEN.

Submitted on 17/12/2010 17:36
________________________________________

Rodrigo Restrepo - UPB/CES (Mdlln. Col) Wrote:

Erythema multiforme complex

Submitted on 17/12/2010 14:08
________________________________________

Marcela Saeb Lima - Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (Mexico City) Wrote:

Erythema multiforme vs NET

Submitted on 17/12/2010 13:23
________________________________________

Mona Abdel-Halim - Dermatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University (Egypt) Wrote:

Erythema Multiforme. As Eman said, the infiltrate is so heavy for TEN. Few esinophils can be seen in the infiltrate which may point to a drug etiology.

Submitted on 17/12/2010 06:08
________________________________________

Eman El-Nabarawy - Cairo University (Egypt) Wrote:

Erythema multiforme ( the infiltrate is heavy for TEN ).

Submitted on 17/12/2010 05:54
________________________________________

Jonny Dee - (USA) Wrote:

Toxic epidermal necrolysis

Submitted on 17/12/2010 00:07
________________________________________