This could potentially be of importance in genetically differentiating between NFJS and DPR.The disruption of the KRT14 gene in DPR suggests this gene is important during the early development of dermatoglyphics and sweat glands. Because of the aforementioned genetic similarity between NFJS and DPR, some researchers have suggested treating the disorders as a single condition. Diagnosis
Diagnosis of DPR begins with review of a patients medical history, laboratory results, and clinical examination of symptoms. Biopsy and histopathological examination can be used to test for the presence of hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, follicular plugging, and basal cell melanization, all indicators of DPR. Furthermore, abnormalities in skin pigmentation patterns as well as the presence of palmoplantar keratoderma with yellow tinting of the skin can indicate a possible case of DPR. Despite the presence of outward indicators, routine blood testing will not yield abnormal results. While the aforementioned symptoms of DPR are outwardly identifiable, DPR is a rare genetic disease that requires genetic analysis to yield a confirmed diagnosis.The Genetic Testing Registry lists 15 clinical genetic tests used in obtaining a diagnosis of this disorder. Two of these tests utilize Targeted Variant Analysis, thirteen utilize sequence analysis of the entire coding region, and seven utilize deletion and duplication analysis. The type of test ordered may depend on the clinicians judgement or access to specific testing methods. Management
To date, there is no medical treatment specific to DPR, however symptom management of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis as well as other, secondary symptoms is possible through the use of topical steroids, keratolytics, and emollients.
An executioner might as well manicure his nails before chopping off a head".In 1844, Ignaz Semmelweis was appointed assistant lecturer in the First Obstetric Division of the Vienna General Hospital (Allgemeines Krankenhaus), where medical students received their training. Working without knowledge of Holmes essay, Semmelweis noticed his wards 16% mortality rate from fever was substantially higher than the 2% mortality rate in the Second Division, where midwifery students were trained. Semmelweis also noticed that puerperal fever was rare in women who gave birth before arriving at the hospital. Semmelweis noted that doctors in First Division performed autopsies each morning on women who had died the previous day, but the midwives were not required or allowed to perform such autopsies. He made the connection between autopsies and puerperal fever after a colleague, Jakob Kolletschka, died of sepsis after accidentally cutting his hand while performing an autopsy. Semmelweis began experimenting with various cleansing agents and, from May 1847, ordered all doctors and students working in the First Division wash their hands in chlorinated lime solution before starting ward work, and later before each vaginal examination. The mortality rate from puerperal fever in the division fell from 18% in May 1847 to less than 3% in June–November of the same year. While his results were extraordinary, he was treated with skepticism and ridicule (see Response to Semmelweis).