This chapter provides an overview of vascular targeting light treatments applied to treatment of commonly encountered cutaneous vascular lesions, specifically port wine birthmarks (PWBs), infantile hemangiomas (IHs), and telangiectasias. Evidence-based recommendations are provided regarding light-based treatment effectiveness, preoperative evaluation, treatment techniques, safety, and postoperative management. We also discuss device and drug combinations which have been utilized including photodynamic therapy or laser in combination with antiangiogenic agents for PWBs and beta-blockers with lasers for IHs. This chapter provides a practical, concise, and evidence-based guide for the utilization of vascular-specific laser treatments available today.

Background

The public preference for provider type in performing cutaneous surgery and cosmetic procedures is unknown in the United States.

Methods

An internet-based survey was administered to the lay public. Respondents were asked to select the health care provider (dermatologist, plastic surgeon, primary care physician, general surgeon, and nurse practitioner/physician's assistant) they mostly prefer to perform different cutaneous cosmetic and surgical procedures.

Results

Three hundred fifty-four respondents undertook the survey. Dermatologists were identified as the most preferable health care provider to evaluate and biopsy worrisome lesions on the face (69.8%), perform skin cancer surgery on the back (73.4%), perform skin cancer surgery on the face (62.7%), and perform laser procedures (56.3%) by most of the respondents. For filler injections, the responders similarly identified plastic surgeons and dermatologists (47.3% vs 44.6%, respectively) as the most preferred health care provider. For botulinum toxin injections, there was a slight preference for plastic surgeons followed by dermatologists (50.6% vs 38.4%). Plastic surgeons were the preferred health care provider for procedures such as liposuction (74.4%) and face-lift surgery (96.1%) by most of the respondents.

Conclusion

Dermatologists are recognized as the preferred health care providers over plastic surgeons, primary care physicians, general surgeons, and nurse practitioners/physician's assistants to perform a variety of cutaneous cosmetic and surgical procedures including skin cancer surgery, on the face and body, and laser procedures. The general public expressed similar preferences for dermatologists and plastic surgeons regarding filler injections.

Importance

Few studies specifically address lawsuits involving Mohs surgery.

Objective

To better characterize the types of medical professional liability claims involving Mohs surgery.

Design, setting, and participants

Retrospective legal document review of an online national database. Any legal proceeding involving the search words Mohs and cancer was included.

Main outcomes and measures

Number of medical professional liability claims involving Mohs surgery for factors including year of litigation, location, physician specialty, injury sustained, cause of legal action, and verdict.

Results

Forty-two cases were identified, which occurred from 1989 to 2011. Of the cases identified, 26 involved non-Mohs surgeons as the primary defendant, mostly due to a delay of or failure in diagnosis (n = 16), cosmetic outcome issues (n = 8), lack of informed consent (n = 7), and a delay of or failure in referral to a Mohs surgeon (n = 6). Common causes for litigation against Mohs surgeons as the primary defendant (n = 16) were lack of proper informed consent (n = 5) and cosmetic outcome issues (n = 4). Only 1 case against a Mohs surgeon was judged for the plaintiff.

Conclusions and relevance

The most common lawsuits pertaining to Mohs surgery list non-Mohs surgeons as the primary defendants. Closer coordination between non-Mohs surgeons and Mohs surgeons may help minimize risk to both parties and lead to better patient care. Small sample size is the primary limitation, in part owing to exclusion of out-of-court settlements from the database.

Background

Few studies illustrate the contributions made by various specialties in pioneering commonly performed noninvasive and minimally invasive cosmetic and surgical procedures.

Objective

To evaluate the contributions made by various specialties in pioneering noninvasive and minimally invasive cosmetic and surgical procedures.

Materials and methods

Key words using the Medical Search Headings Database were used to query in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Database. The 25 most highly cited studies were sorted according to the citation number. The author specialty was identified and assigned scores based on the number of citations.

Results

Dermatology was identified as the specialty with the greatest contribution to botulinum toxin treatments for rhytides, injectable fillers, laser treatments, chemical peels, and noninvasive body contouring. Neurology was identified as the leading specialty in botulinum toxin treatments for hyperhidrosis, and vascular surgery was identified as leading specialty in sclerotherapy. Plastic surgery was identified as having made the greatest contribution to hair transplantation, and liposuction.

Conclusion

Dermatology was identified as the leading specialty for the majority of noninvasive and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Other specialties have also contributed important literature to this area.

Importance

Excisional skin cancer surgery is a common procedure, with no formal consensus for mitigating the risk of wrong-site cutaneous surgery.

Objective

To systematically consider the usefulness and feasibility of proposed methods for correct biopsy site identification in dermatology.

Evidence review

Survey study with a formal consensus process. Item development was via a literature review and expert interviews, followed by 2 stages of a Delphi process to develop consensus recommendations.

Findings

In total, 2323 articles were reviewed in the literature search, with data extraction from 14. Twenty-five experts underwent 30-minute structured interviews, which were transcribed and coded. The resulting survey was composed of 42 proposed interventions by multiple stakeholders (biopsying physicians, operating physicians, nurses, ancillary staff, patients, caregivers, and family members) at 3 time points (day of biopsy, delay and consultation period, and day of definitive surgery). Two rounds of a Delphi process with 59 experts (25 academic and 34 private practice) scored the survey. Strong consensus was obtained on 14 behaviors, and moderate consensus was obtained on 21 other behaviors. In addition, a 2-state simultaneous algorithm was developed to model surgeon behavior on the day of definitive surgery based on surgeon and patient perceptions.

Conclusions and relevance

When definitive surgery is performed after the initial biopsy and by a different surgeon, procedures can be implemented at several time points to increase the likelihood of correct site identification. The specific circumstances of a case suggest which methods may be most appropriate and feasible, and some may be implemented. The risk of wrong-site cutaneous surgery can be reduced but not eliminated.

Introduction

While laser technology has expanded the armamentarium of treatment for various skin diseases during the past years, heterogeneity in study outcomes hampers comparability and appropriate evidence synthesis. Part of these issues can be addressed by developing a generic outcome set. Using the Delphi method, this study aims to seek consensus between key stakeholders on relevant generic outcomes (what to measure) for implementation in the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD). The registry is focused on collecting research data on various laser treatments for skin disorders.

Methods and analysis

By reviewing the literature and involvement of key stakeholder groups and adult patients in need or after laser surgery and health professionals, a preliminary list of outcomes will be generated and categorised into domains. Using these outcomes, an international three-round Delphi study will be performed to rate the importance of outcomes in the selection of a generic outcome set. Participants are allowed to provide new outcomes to the preliminary list for revisions during the first Delphi round. Finally, results will be discussed during a consensus meeting to agree on generic outcomes to be used in the LEAD registry.

Ethics and dissemination

An ethics approval was not applicable (W19_290 # 18.336). The study is registered with the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcome Set INitiative) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. Procedures will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Importance

The notion that systemic isotretinoin taken within 6 to 12 months of cutaneous surgery contributes to abnormal scarring or delayed wound healing is widely taught and practiced; however, it is based on 3 small case series from the mid-1980s.

Objective

To evaluate the body of literature to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the safety of procedural interventions performed either concurrently with, or immediately following the cessation of systemic isotretinoin therapy.

Evidence review

A panel of national experts in pediatric dermatology, procedural/cosmetic dermatology, plastic surgery, scars, wound healing, acne, and isotretinoin was convened. A systematic PubMed review of English-language articles published from 1982 to 2017 was performed using the following search terms: isotretinoin, 13-cis-retinoic acid, Accutane, retinoids, acitretin, surgery, surgical, laser, ablative laser, nonablative laser, laser hair removal, chemical peel, dermabrasion, wound healing, safety, scarring, hypertrophic scar, and keloid. Evidence was graded, and expert consensus was obtained.

Findings

Thirty-two relevant publications reported 1485 procedures. There was insufficient evidence to support delaying manual dermabrasion, superficial chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and fractional ablative and nonablative laser procedures for patients currently receiving or having recently completed isotretinoin therapy. Based on the available literature, mechanical dermabrasion and fully ablative laser are not recommended in the setting of systemic isotretinoin treatment.

Conclusions and relevance

Physicians and patients may have an evidence-based discussion regarding the known risk of cutaneous surgical procedures in the setting of systemic isotretinoin therapy. For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.