Wound Healing: Cellular Review With Specific Attention to Postamputation Care

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 03/06/2024 - 11:45
Display Headline
Wound Healing: Cellular Review With Specific Attention to Postamputation Care
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF MILITARY DERMATOLOGISTS

Restoring skin integrity and balance after injury is vital for survival, serving as a crucial defense mechanism against potential infections by preventing the entry of harmful pathogens. Moreover, proper healing is essential for restoring normal tissue function, allowing damaged tissues to repair and, in an ideal scenario, regenerate. Timely healing helps reduce the risk for complications, such as chronic wounds, which could lead to more severe issues if left untreated. Additionally, pain relief often is associated with effective wound healing as inflammatory responses diminish during the repair process.

The immune system plays a pivotal role in wound healing, influencing various repair mechanisms and ultimately determining the extent of scarring. Although inflammation is present throughout the repair response, recent studies have challenged the conventional belief of an inverse correlation between the intensity of inflammation and regenerative capacity. Inflammatory signals were found to be crucial for timely repair and fundamental processes in regeneration, possibly presenting a paradigm shift in the understanding of immunology.1-4 The complexities of wound healing are exemplified when evaluating and treating postamputation wounds. To address such a task, one needs a firm understanding of the science behind healing wounds and what can go wrong along the way.

Phases of Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process that involves a series of sequential yet overlapping phases, including hemostasis/inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.

Hemostasis/Inflammation—The initial stage of wound healing involves hemostasis, in which the primary objective is to prevent blood loss and initiate inflammation. Platelets arrive at the wound site, forming a provisional clot that is crucial for subsequent healing phases.4-6 Platelets halt bleeding as well as act as a medium for cell migration and adhesion; they also are a source of growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines that herald the inflammatory response.4-7

Inflammation is characterized by the infiltration of immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages. Neutrophils act as the first line of defense, clearing debris and preventing infection. Macrophages follow, phagocytizing apoptotic cells and releasing growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor α, vascular endothelial growth factor, and matrix metalloprotease 9, which stimulate the next phase.4-6,8 Typically, the hemostasis and inflammatory phase starts approximately 6 to 8 hours after wound origin and lasts 3 to 4 days.4,6,7

Proliferation—Following hemostasis and inflammation, the wound transitions into the proliferation phase, which is marked by the development of granulation tissue—a dynamic amalgamation of fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and inflammatory cells.1,4-8 Fibroblasts play a central role in synthesizing collagen, the primary structural protein in connective tissue. They also orchestrate synthesis of vitronectin, fibronectin, fibrin, and tenascin.4-6,8 Simultaneously, angiogenesis takes place, involving the creation of new blood vessels to supply essential nutrients and oxygen to the healing tissue.4,7,9 Growth factors such as transforming growth factor β and vascular endothelial growth factor coordinate cellular activities and foster tissue repair.4-6,8 The proliferation phase extends over days to weeks, laying the groundwork for subsequent tissue restructuring.

Remodeling—The final stage of wound healing is remodeling, an extended process that may persist for several months or, in some cases, years. Throughout this phase, the initially deposited collagen, predominantly type III collagen, undergoes transformation into mature type I collagen.4-6,8 This transformation is critical for reinstating the tissue’s strength and functionality. The balance between collagen synthesis and degradation is delicate, regulated by matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors of metalloproteinases.4-8 Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and other cells coordinate this intricate process of tissue reorganization.4-7

 

 

The eventual outcome of the remodeling phase determines the appearance and functionality of the healed tissue. Any disruption in this phase can lead to complications, such as chronic wounds and hypertrophic scars/keloids.4-6 These abnormal healing processes are characterized by localized inflammation, heightened fibroblast function, and excessive accumulation of the extracellular matrix.4-8

Molecular Mechanisms

Comprehensive investigations—both in vivo and in vitro—have explored the intricate molecular mechanisms involved in heightened wound healing. Transforming growth factor β takes center stage as a crucial factor, prompting the transformation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts and contributing to the deposition of extracellular matrix.2,4-8,10 Transforming growth factor β activates non-Smad signaling pathways, such as MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), influencing processes associated with fibrosis.5,11 Furthermore, microRNAs play a pivotal role in posttranscriptional regulation, influencing both transforming growth factor β signaling and fibroblast behavior.12-16

The involvement of prostaglandins is crucial in wound healing. Prostaglandin E2 plays a notable role and is positively correlated with the rate of wound healing.5 The cyclooxygenase pathway, pivotal for prostaglandin synthesis, becomes a target for inflammation control.4,5,10 Although aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly are employed, their impact on wound healing remains controversial, as inhibition of cyclooxygenase may disrupt normal repair processes.5,17,18

Wound healing exhibits variations depending on age. Fetal skin regeneration is marked by the restoration of normal dermal architecture, including adnexal structures, nerves, vessels, and muscle.4-6 The distinctive characteristics of fetal wound healing include a unique profile of growth factors, a diminished inflammatory response, reduced biomechanical stress, and a distinct extracellular matrix composition.19 These factors contribute to a lower propensity for scar formation compared to the healing processes observed in adults. Fetal and adult wound healing differ fundamentally in their extracellular matrix composition, inflammatory cells, and cytokine levels.4-6,19 Adult wounds feature myofibroblasts, which are absent in fetal wounds, contributing to heightened mechanical tension.5 Delving deeper into the biochemical basis of fetal wound healing holds promise for mitigating scar formation in adults.

Takeaways From Other Species

Much of the biochemical knowledge of wound healing, especially regenerative wound healing, is known from other species. Geckos provide a unique model for studying regenerative repair in tails and nonregenerative healing in limbs after amputation. Scar-free wound healing is characterized by rapid wound closure, delayed blood vessel development, and collagen deposition, which contrasts with the hypervascular granulation tissue seen in scarring wounds.20 Scar-free wound healing and regeneration are intrinsic properties of the lizard tail and are unaffected by the location or method of detachment.21

Compared to amphibians with extraordinary regenerative capacity, data suggest the lack of regenerative capacity in mammals may come from a desynchronization of the fine-tuned interplay of progenitor cells such as blastema and differentiated cells.22,23 In mice, the response to amputation is specific to the level: cutting through the distal third of the terminal phalanx elicits a regeneration response, yielding a new digit tip resembling the lost one, while an amputation through the distal third of the intermediate phalanx triggers a wound healing and scarring response.24

Wound Healing Following Limb Amputation

Limb amputation represents a profound change in an individual’s life, impacting daily activities and overall well-being. There are many causes of amputation, but the most common include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and trauma.25-27 Trauma represents a relatively common cause within the US Military due to the overall young population as well as inherent risks of uniformed service.25,27 Advances in protective gear and combat casualty care have led to an increased number of individuals surviving with extremity injuries requiring amputation, particularly among younger service members, with a subgroup experiencing multiple amputations.27-29

 

 

Numerous factors play a crucial role in the healing and function of postamputation wounds. The level of amputation is a key determinant influencing both functional outcomes and the healing process. Achieving a balance between preserving function and removing damaged tissue is essential. A study investigating cardiac function and oxygen consumption in 25 patients with peripheral vascular disease found higher-level amputations resulted in decreased walking speed and cadence, along with increased oxygen consumption per meter walked.30

Selecting the appropriate amputation level is vital to optimize functional outcomes without compromising wound healing. Successful prosthetic limb fitting depends largely on the length of the residual stump to support the body load and suspend the prosthesis. For long bone amputations, maintaining at least 12-cm clearance above the knee joint in transfemoral amputees and 10-cm below the knee joint in transtibial amputees is critical for maximizing functional outcomes.31

Surgical technique also is paramount. The goal is to minimize the risk for pressure ulcers by avoiding bony spurs and muscle imbalances. Shaping the muscle and residual limb is essential for proper prosthesis fitting. Attention to neurovascular structures, such as burying nerve ends to prevent neuropathic pain during prosthesis wear, is crucial.32 In extremity amputations, surgeons often resort to free flap transfer techniques for stump reconstruction. In a study of 31 patients with severe lower extremity injuries undergoing various amputations, the use of latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps, alone or in combination with serratus anterior muscle flaps, resulted in fewer instances of deep ulceration and allowed for earlier prosthesis wear.33

Addressing Barriers to Wound Healing

Multiple barriers to successful wound healing are encountered in the amputee population. Amputations from trauma have a less-controlled initiation, which carries with it a higher risk for infection, poor wound healing, and other complications.

Infection—Infection often is one of the first hurdles encountered in postamputation wound healing. Critical first steps in infection prevention include thorough cleaning of soiled traumatic wounds and appropriate tissue debridement coupled with scrupulous sterile technique and postoperative monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection.

In a retrospective study of 223 combat-related major lower extremity amputations (initial and revision) between 2009 and 2015, the use of intrawound antibiotic powder at the time of closure demonstrated a 13% absolute risk reduction in deep infection rates, which was particularly notable in revision amputations, with a number needed to treat of 8 for initial amputations and 4 for revision amputations on previously infected limbs.34 Intra-operative antibiotic powder may represent a cheap and easy consideration for this special population of amputees. Postamputation antibiotic prophylaxis for infection prevention is an area of controversy. For nontraumatic infections, data suggest antibiotic prophylaxis may not decrease infection rates in these patients.35,36

Interestingly, a study by Azarbal et al37 aimed to investigate the correlation between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with wound occurrence following major lower extremity amputation. The study found MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall wound occurrence as well as wound occurrence due to wound infection. These data suggest nasal MRSA eradication may improve postoperative wound outcomes after major lower extremity amputation.37

 

 

Dressing Choice—The dressing chosen for a residual limb also is of paramount importance following amputation. The personalized and dynamic management of postamputation wounds and skin involves achieving optimal healing through a dressing that sustains appropriate moisture levels, addresses edema, helps prevent contractures, and safeguards the limb.38 From the start, using negative pressure wound dressings after surgical amputation can decrease wound-related complications.39

Topical oxygen therapy following amputation also shows promise. In a retrospective case series by Kalliainen et al,40 topical oxygen therapy applied to 58 wounds in 32 patients over 9 months demonstrated positive outcomes in promoting wound healing, with 38 wounds (66%) healing completely with the use of topical oxygen. Minimal complications and no detrimental effects were observed.40

Current recommendations suggest that non–weight-bearing removable rigid dressings are the superior postoperative management for transtibial amputations compared to soft dressings, offering benefits such as faster healing, reduced limb edema, earlier ambulation, preparatory shaping for prosthetic use, and prevention of knee flexion contractures.41-46 Similarly, adding a silicone liner following amputation significantly reduced the duration of prosthetic rehabilitation compared with a conventional soft dressing program in one study (P<.05).47

Specifically targeting wound edema, a case series by Hoskins et al48 investigated the impact of prostheses with vacuum-assisted suspension on the size of residual limb wounds in individuals with transtibial amputation. Well-fitting sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension did not impede wound healing, and the results suggest the potential for continued prosthesis use during the healing process.48 However, a study by Johannesson et al49 compared the outcomes of transtibial amputation patients using a vacuum-formed rigid dressing and a conventional rigid plaster dressing, finding no significant differences in wound healing, time to prosthetic fitting, or functional outcomes with the prosthesis between the 2 groups. When comparing elastic bandaging, pneumatic prosthesis, and temporary prosthesis on postoperative stump management, temporary prosthesis led to a decrease in stump volume, quicker transition to a permanent prosthesis, and improved quality of life compared with elastic bandaging and pneumatic prosthetics.50

The type of material in dressings may contribute to utility in amputation wounds. Keratin-based wound dressings show promise for wound healing, especially in recalcitrant vascular wounds.51 There also are numerous proprietary wound dressings available for patients, at least one of which has particularly thorough data. In a retrospective study of more than 2 million lower extremity wounds across 644 institutions, a proprietary bioactive human skin allograft (TheraSkin [LifeNet Health]) demonstrated higher healing rates, greater percentage area reductions, lower amputations, reduced recidivism, higher treatment completion, and fewer medical transfers compared with standard of care alone.52

Postamputation Dermatologic Concerns

After the postamputation wound heals, a notable concern is the prevalence of skin diseases affecting residual limbs. The stump site in amputees, marked by a delicate cutaneous landscape vulnerable to skin diseases, faces challenges arising from amputation-induced damage to various structures.53

When integrated into a prosthesis socket, the altered skin must acclimate to a humid environment and endure forces for which it is not well suited, especially during movement.53 Amputation remarkably alters normal tissue perfusion, which can lead to aberrant blood and lymphatic circulation in residual limbs.27,53 This compromised skin, often associated with a history of vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignancy, becomes immunocompromised, heightening the risk for dermatologic issues such as inflammation, infection, and malignancies.53 Unlike the resilient volar skin on palms and soles, stump skin lacks adaptation to withstand the compressive forces generated during ambulation, sometimes leading to skin disease and pain that result in abandonment of the prosthesis.53,54 Mechanical forces on the skin, especially in active patients eager to resume pre-injury lifestyles, contribute to skin breakdown. The dynamic nature of the residual limb, including muscle atrophy, gait changes, and weight fluctuations, complicates the prosthetic fitting process. Prosthesis abandonment remains a challenge, despite modern technologic advancements.

 

 

The occurrence of heterotopic ossification (extraskeletal bone formation) is another notable issue in military amputees.27,55-57 Poor prosthetic fit can lead to skin degradation, necessitating further surgery to address mispositioned bone formations. Orthopedic monitoring supplemented by appropriate imaging studies can benefit postamputation patients by detecting and preventing heterotopic ossification in its early stages.

Dermatologic issues, especially among lower limb amputees, are noteworthy, with a substantial percentage experiencing complications related to socket prosthetics, such as heat, sweating, sores, and skin irritation. Up to 41% of patients are seen regularly for a secondary skin disorder following amputation.58 As one might expect, persistent wounds, blisters, ulcers, and abscesses are some of the most typical cutaneous abnormalities affecting residual limbs with prostheses.27,58 More rare skin conditions also are documented in residual limbs, including cutaneous granuloma, verrucous carcinoma, bullous pemphigoid, and angiodermatitis.27,59-61

Treatments offered in the dermatology clinic often are similar to patients who have not had an amputation. For instance, hyperhidrosis can be treated with prescription antiperspirant, topical aluminum chloride, topical glycopyrronium, botulinum toxin, and iontophoresis, which can greatly decrease skin irritation and malodor. Subcutaneous neurotoxins such as botulinum toxin are especially useful for hyperhidrosis following amputation because a single treatment can last 3 to 6 months, whereas topicals must be applied multiple times per day and can be inherently irritating to the skin.27,62 Furthermore, ablative fractional resurfacing lasers also can help stimulate new collagen growth, increase skin mobility on residual limbs, smooth jagged scars, and aid prosthetic fitting.27,63 Perforated prosthetic liners also may be useful to address issues such as excessive sweating, demonstrating improvements in skin health, reduced sweating problems, and potential avoidance of surgical interventions.64

When comorbid skin conditions are at bay, preventive measures for excessive wound healing necessitate early recognition and timely intervention for residual limbs. Preventive techniques encompass the use of silicone gel sheeting, hypoallergenic microporous tape, and intralesional steroid injections.

Psychological Concerns—An overarching issue following amputation is the psychological toll the process imposes on the patient. Psychological concerns, including anxiety and depression, present additional challenges impacting residual limb hygiene and prosthetic maintenance. Chronic wounds are devastating to patients. These patients consistently express feeling ostracized from their community and anxious about unemployment, leaking fluid, or odor from the wound, as well as other social stigmata.62 Depression and anxiety can hinder a patient’s ability to care for their wound and make them more susceptible to the myriad issues that can ensue.

Recent Developments in Wound Healing

Wound healing is ripe for innovation that could assuage ailments that impact patients following amputation. A 2022 study by Abu El Hawa et al65 illustrated advanced progression in wound healing for patients taking statins, even though the statin group had increased age and number of comorbidities compared with patients not taking statins.

Nasseri and Sharifi66 showed the potential of antimicrobial peptides—small proteins with cationic charges and amphipathic structures exhibiting electrostatic interaction with microbial cell membranes—in promoting wound healing, particularly defensins and cathelicidin LL-37.They also discussed innovative delivery systems, such as nanoparticles and electrospun fibrous scaffolds, highlighting their potential as possibly more effective therapeutics than antibiotics, especially in the context of diabetic wound closure.66 Aimed at increased angiogenesis in the proliferative phase, there is evidence that N-acetylcysteine can increase amputation stump perfusion with the goal of better long-term wound healing and more efficient scar formation.67

Stem cell therapy, particularly employing cells from the human amniotic membrane, represents an auspicious avenue for antifibrotic treatment. Amniotic epithelial cells and amniotic mesenchymal cells, with their self-renewal and multilineage differentiation capabilities, exhibit anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.4,5 A study by Dong et al68 aimed to assess the efficacy of cell therapy, particularly differentiated progenitor cell–based graft transplantation or autologous stem cell injection, in treating refractory skin injuries such as nonrevascularizable critical limb ischemic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and diabetic lower limb ulcers. The findings demonstrated cell therapy effectively reduced the size of ulcers, improved wound closure rates, and decreased major amputation rates compared with standard therapy. Of note, cell therapy had limited impact on alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischemia-related cutaneous ulcers.68

Final Thoughts

Wound care following amputation is a multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration between many health care professionals. Dermatologists play a crucial role in providing routine care as well as addressing wound healing and related skin issues among amputation patients. As the field progresses, dermatologists are well positioned to make notable contributions and ensure enhanced outcomes, resulting in a better quality of life for patients facing the challenges of limb amputation and prosthetic use.

References
  1. Brockes JP, Kumar A. Comparative aspects of animal regeneration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2008;24:525-549. doi:10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175336
  2. Eming SA, Hammerschmidt M, Krieg T, et al. Interrelation of immunity and tissue repair or regeneration. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2009;20:517-527. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.04.009
  3. Eming SA. Evolution of immune pathways in regeneration and repair: recent concepts and translational perspectives. Semin Immunol. 2014;26:275-276. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2014.09.001
  4. Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JJ, Schaffer JV, et al. Dermatology. 4th edition. Elsevier; 2018.
  5. Wang PH, Huang BS, Horng HC, et al. Wound healing. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2018;81:94-101. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.11.002
  6. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1528-1542. doi:10.1177/147323000903700531
  7. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, et al. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453:314-321. doi:10.1038/nature07039
  8. Eming SA, Martin P, Tomic-Canic M. Wound repair and regeneration: mechanisms, signaling, and translation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:265sr6. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3009337
  9. Eming SA, Brachvogel B, Odorisio T, et al. Regulation of angiogenesis: wound healing as a model. Prog Histochem Cytochem. 2007;42:115-170. doi:10.1016/j.proghi.2007.06.001
  10. Janis JE, Harrison B. Wound healing: part I. basic science. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3 suppl):9S-17S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002773
  11. Profyris C, Tziotzios C, Do Vale I. Cutaneous scarring: pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms, and scar reduction therapeutics. part I: the molecular basis of scar formation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66:1-10; quiz 11-12. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.05.055
  12. Kwan P, Ding J, Tredget EE. MicroRNA 181b regulates decorin production by dermal fibroblasts and may be a potential therapy for hypertrophic scar. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123054
  13. Ben W, Yang Y, Yuan J, et al. Human papillomavirus 16 E6 modulates the expression of host microRNAs in cervical cancer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;54:364-370. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2014.06.007
  14. Yu EH, Tu HF, Wu CH, et al. MicroRNA-21 promotes perineural invasion and impacts survival in patients with oral carcinoma. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2017;80:383-388. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.01.003
  15. Wen KC, Sung PL, Yen MS, et al. MicroRNAs regulate several functions of normal tissues and malignancies. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;52:465-469. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2013.10.002
  16. Babalola O, Mamalis A, Lev-Tov H, et al. The role of microRNAs in skin fibrosis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013;305:763-776. doi:10.1007/s00403-013-1410-1
  17. Hofer M, Hoferová Z, Falk M. Pharmacological modulation of radiation damage. does it exist a chance for other substances than hematopoietic growth factors and cytokines? Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:1385. doi:10.3390/ijms18071385
  18. Darby IA, Weller CD. Aspirin treatment for chronic wounds: potential beneficial and inhibitory effects. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25:7-12. doi:10.1111/wrr.12502
  19. Khalid KA, Nawi AFM, Zulkifli N, et al. Aging and wound healing of the skin: a review of clinical and pathophysiological hallmarks. Life. 2022;12:2142. doi:10.3390/life12122142
  20. Peacock HM, Gilbert EAB, Vickaryous MK. Scar‐free cutaneous wound healing in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius. J Anat. 2015;227:596-610. doi:10.1111/joa.12368
  21. Delorme SL, Lungu IM, Vickaryous MK. Scar‐free wound healing and regeneration following tail loss in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius. Anat Rec. 2012;295:1575-1595. doi:10.1002/ar.22490
  22. Brunauer R, Xia IG, Asrar SN, et al. Aging delays epimorphic regeneration in mice. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76:1726-1733. doi:10.1093/gerona/glab131
  23. Dolan CP, Yang TJ, Zimmel K, et al. Epimorphic regeneration of the mouse digit tip is finite. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13:62. doi:10.1186/s13287-022-02741-2
  24. Simkin J, Han M, Yu L, et al. The mouse digit tip: from wound healing to regeneration. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ. 2013;1037:419-435. doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-505-7_24
  25. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422-429. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005
  26. Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, et al. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:659-663. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.09.003
  27. Lannan FM, Meyerle JH. The dermatologist’s role in amputee skin care. Cutis. 2019;103:86-90.
  28. Dougherty AL, Mohrle CR, Galarneau MR, et al. Battlefield extremity injuries in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Injury. 2009;40:772-777. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.02.014
  29. Epstein RA, Heinemann AW, McFarland LV. Quality of life for veterans and servicemembers with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:373-385. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.03.0023
  30. Pinzur MS, Gold J, Schwartz D, et al. Energy demands for walking in dysvascular amputees as related to the level of amputation. Orthopedics. 1992;15:1033-1036; discussion 1036-1037. doi:10.3928/0147-7447-19920901-07
  31. Robinson V, Sansam K, Hirst L, et al. Major lower limb amputation–what, why and how to achieve the best results. Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:276-285. doi:10.1016/j.mporth.2010.03.017
  32. Lu S, Wang C, Zhong W, et al. Amputation stump revision using a free sural neurocutaneous perforator flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:83-87. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000211
  33. Kim SW, Jeon SB, Hwang KT, et al. Coverage of amputation stumps using a latissimus dorsi flap with a serratus anterior muscle flap: a comparative study. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:88-93. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000220
  34. Pavey GJ, Formby PM, Hoyt BW, et al. Intrawound antibiotic powder decreases frequency of deep infection and severity of heterotopic ossification in combat lower extremity amputations. Clin Orthop. 2019;477:802-810. doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000090
  35. Dunkel N, Belaieff W, Assal M, et al. Wound dehiscence and stump infection after lower limb amputation: risk factors and association with antibiotic use. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2012;17:588-594. doi:10.1007/s00776-012-0245-5
  36. Rubin G, Orbach H, Rinott M, et al. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in treatment of fingertip amputation: a randomized prospective trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33:645-647. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.002
  37. Azarbal AF, Harris S, Mitchell EL, et al. Nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization is associated with increased wound occurrence after major lower extremity amputation. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:401-405. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2015.02.052
  38. Kwasniewski M, Mitchel D. Post amputation skin and wound care. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2022;33:857-870. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2022.06.010
  39. Chang H, Maldonado TS, Rockman CB, et al. Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy may decrease wound complications in major lower extremity amputations. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:1041-1047. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.061
  40. Kalliainen LK, Gordillo GM, Schlanger R, et al. Topical oxygen as an adjunct to wound healing: a clinical case series. Pathophysiol Off J Int Soc Pathophysiol. 2003;9:81-87. doi:10.1016/s0928-4680(02)00079-2
  41. Reichmann JP, Stevens PM, Rheinstein J, et al. Removable rigid dressings for postoperative management of transtibial amputations: a review of published evidence. PM R. 2018;10:516-523. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.10.002
  42. MacLean N, Fick GH. The effect of semirigid dressings on below-knee amputations. Phys Ther. 1994;74:668-673. doi:10.1093/ptj/74.7.668
  43. Koonalinthip N, Sukthongsa A, Janchai S. Comparison of removable rigid dressing and elastic bandage for residual limb maturation in transtibial amputees: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101:1683-1688. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.05.009
  44. Taylor L, Cavenett S, Stepien JM, et al. Removable rigid dressings: a retrospective case-note audit to determine the validity of post-amputation application. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:223-230. doi:10.1080/03093640802016795
  45. Sumpio B, Shine SR, Mahler D, et al. A comparison of immediate postoperative rigid and soft dressings for below-knee amputations. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:774-780. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2013.03.007
  46. van Velzen AD, Nederhand MJ, Emmelot CH, et al. Early treatment of trans-tibial amputees: retrospective analysis of early fitting and elastic bandaging. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:3-12. doi:10.1080/17461550500069588
  47. Chin T, Toda M. Results of prosthetic rehabilitation on managing transtibial vascular amputation with silicone liner after wound closure. J Int Med Res. 2016;44:957-967. doi:10.1177/0300060516647554
  48. Hoskins RD, Sutton EE, Kinor D, et al. Using vacuum-assisted suspension to manage residual limb wounds in persons with transtibial amputation: a case series. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:68-74. doi:10.1177/0309364613487547
  49. Johannesson A, Larsson GU, Oberg T, et al. Comparison of vacuum-formed removable rigid dressing with conventional rigid dressing after transtibial amputation: similar outcome in a randomized controlled trial involving 27 patients. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:361-369. doi:10.1080/17453670710015265
  50. Alsancak S, Köse SK, Altınkaynak H. Effect of elastic bandaging and prosthesis on the decrease in stump volume. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2011;45:14-22. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2011.2365
  51. Than MP, Smith RA, Hammond C, et al. Keratin-based wound care products for treatment of resistant vascular wounds. J Clin Aesthetic Dermatol. 2012;5:31-35.
  52. Gurtner GC, Garcia AD, Bakewell K, et al. A retrospective matched‐cohort study of 3994 lower extremity wounds of multiple etiologies across 644 institutions comparing a bioactive human skin allograft, TheraSkin, plus standard of care, to standard of care alone. Int Wound J. 2020;17:55-64. doi:10.1111/iwj.13231
  53. Buikema KES, Meyerle JH. Amputation stump: privileged harbor for infections, tumors, and immune disorders. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:670-677. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2014.04.015
  54. Yang NB, Garza LA, Foote CE, et al. High prevalence of stump dermatoses 38 years or more after amputation. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1283-1286. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2012.3004
  55. Potter BK, Burns TC, Lacap AP, et al. Heterotopic ossification following traumatic and combat-related amputations. Prevalence, risk factors, and preliminary results of excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:476-486. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00412
  56. Edwards DS, Kuhn KM, Potter BK, et al. Heterotopic ossification: a review of current understanding, treatment, and future. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(suppl 3):S27-S30. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000666
  57. Tintle SM, Shawen SB, Forsberg JA, et al. Reoperation after combat-related major lower extremity amputations. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:232-237. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182a53130
  58. Bui KM, Raugi GJ, Nguyen VQ, et al. Skin problems in individuals with lower-limb loss: literature review and proposed classification system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:1085-1090. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.04.0052
  59. Turan H, Bas¸kan EB, Adim SB, et al. Acroangiodermatitis in a below-knee amputation stump. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2011;36:560-561. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2011.04037.x
  60. Lin CH, Ma H, Chung MT, et al. Granulomatous cutaneous lesions associated with risperidone-induced hyperprolactinemia in an amputated upper limb. Int J Dermatol. 2012;51:75-78. doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2011.04906.x
  61. Schwartz RA, Bagley MP, Janniger CK, et al. Verrucous carcinoma of a leg amputation stump. Dermatologica. 1991;182:193-195. doi:10.1159/000247782
  62. Campanati A, Diotallevi F, Radi G, et al. Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin B in focal hyperhidrosis: a narrative review. Toxins. 2023;15:147. doi:10.3390/toxins15020147
  63. Anderson RR, Donelan MB, Hivnor C, et al. Laser treatment of traumatic scars with an emphasis on ablative fractional laser resurfacing: consensus report. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:187-193. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.7761
  64. McGrath M, McCarthy J, Gallego A, et al. The influence of perforated prosthetic liners on residual limb wound healing: a case report. Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2019;2:32723. doi:10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.32723
  65. Abu El Hawa AA, Klein D, Bekeny JC, et al. The impact of statins on wound healing: an ally in treating the highly comorbid patient. J Wound Care. 2022;31(suppl 2):S36-S41. doi:10.12968/jowc.2022.31.Sup2.S36
  66. Nasseri S, Sharifi M. Therapeutic potential of antimicrobial peptides for wound healing. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2022;28:38. doi:10.1007/s10989-021-10350-5
  67. Lee JV, Engel C, Tay S, et al. N-Acetyl-Cysteine treatment after lower extremity amputation improves areas of perfusion defect and wound healing outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:39-40. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.12.025
  68. Dong Y, Yang Q, Sun X. Comprehensive analysis of cell therapy on chronic skin wound healing: a meta-analysis. Hum Gene Ther. 2021;32:787-795. doi:10.1089/hum.2020.275
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Naval Medical Center San Diego, California.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

All authors are military service members. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.” Title 17 U.S.C. 101 defines a United States Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Correspondence: David S. Kirwin, MD, Naval Medical Center San Diego Dermatology Department, 1261 34th St, Unit 31, San Diego, CA 92102 ([email protected]).

Issue
Cutis - 113(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
125-131
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Naval Medical Center San Diego, California.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

All authors are military service members. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.” Title 17 U.S.C. 101 defines a United States Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Correspondence: David S. Kirwin, MD, Naval Medical Center San Diego Dermatology Department, 1261 34th St, Unit 31, San Diego, CA 92102 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Naval Medical Center San Diego, California.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

All authors are military service members. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.” Title 17 U.S.C. 101 defines a United States Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Correspondence: David S. Kirwin, MD, Naval Medical Center San Diego Dermatology Department, 1261 34th St, Unit 31, San Diego, CA 92102 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF MILITARY DERMATOLOGISTS
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF MILITARY DERMATOLOGISTS

Restoring skin integrity and balance after injury is vital for survival, serving as a crucial defense mechanism against potential infections by preventing the entry of harmful pathogens. Moreover, proper healing is essential for restoring normal tissue function, allowing damaged tissues to repair and, in an ideal scenario, regenerate. Timely healing helps reduce the risk for complications, such as chronic wounds, which could lead to more severe issues if left untreated. Additionally, pain relief often is associated with effective wound healing as inflammatory responses diminish during the repair process.

The immune system plays a pivotal role in wound healing, influencing various repair mechanisms and ultimately determining the extent of scarring. Although inflammation is present throughout the repair response, recent studies have challenged the conventional belief of an inverse correlation between the intensity of inflammation and regenerative capacity. Inflammatory signals were found to be crucial for timely repair and fundamental processes in regeneration, possibly presenting a paradigm shift in the understanding of immunology.1-4 The complexities of wound healing are exemplified when evaluating and treating postamputation wounds. To address such a task, one needs a firm understanding of the science behind healing wounds and what can go wrong along the way.

Phases of Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process that involves a series of sequential yet overlapping phases, including hemostasis/inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.

Hemostasis/Inflammation—The initial stage of wound healing involves hemostasis, in which the primary objective is to prevent blood loss and initiate inflammation. Platelets arrive at the wound site, forming a provisional clot that is crucial for subsequent healing phases.4-6 Platelets halt bleeding as well as act as a medium for cell migration and adhesion; they also are a source of growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines that herald the inflammatory response.4-7

Inflammation is characterized by the infiltration of immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages. Neutrophils act as the first line of defense, clearing debris and preventing infection. Macrophages follow, phagocytizing apoptotic cells and releasing growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor α, vascular endothelial growth factor, and matrix metalloprotease 9, which stimulate the next phase.4-6,8 Typically, the hemostasis and inflammatory phase starts approximately 6 to 8 hours after wound origin and lasts 3 to 4 days.4,6,7

Proliferation—Following hemostasis and inflammation, the wound transitions into the proliferation phase, which is marked by the development of granulation tissue—a dynamic amalgamation of fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and inflammatory cells.1,4-8 Fibroblasts play a central role in synthesizing collagen, the primary structural protein in connective tissue. They also orchestrate synthesis of vitronectin, fibronectin, fibrin, and tenascin.4-6,8 Simultaneously, angiogenesis takes place, involving the creation of new blood vessels to supply essential nutrients and oxygen to the healing tissue.4,7,9 Growth factors such as transforming growth factor β and vascular endothelial growth factor coordinate cellular activities and foster tissue repair.4-6,8 The proliferation phase extends over days to weeks, laying the groundwork for subsequent tissue restructuring.

Remodeling—The final stage of wound healing is remodeling, an extended process that may persist for several months or, in some cases, years. Throughout this phase, the initially deposited collagen, predominantly type III collagen, undergoes transformation into mature type I collagen.4-6,8 This transformation is critical for reinstating the tissue’s strength and functionality. The balance between collagen synthesis and degradation is delicate, regulated by matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors of metalloproteinases.4-8 Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and other cells coordinate this intricate process of tissue reorganization.4-7

 

 

The eventual outcome of the remodeling phase determines the appearance and functionality of the healed tissue. Any disruption in this phase can lead to complications, such as chronic wounds and hypertrophic scars/keloids.4-6 These abnormal healing processes are characterized by localized inflammation, heightened fibroblast function, and excessive accumulation of the extracellular matrix.4-8

Molecular Mechanisms

Comprehensive investigations—both in vivo and in vitro—have explored the intricate molecular mechanisms involved in heightened wound healing. Transforming growth factor β takes center stage as a crucial factor, prompting the transformation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts and contributing to the deposition of extracellular matrix.2,4-8,10 Transforming growth factor β activates non-Smad signaling pathways, such as MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), influencing processes associated with fibrosis.5,11 Furthermore, microRNAs play a pivotal role in posttranscriptional regulation, influencing both transforming growth factor β signaling and fibroblast behavior.12-16

The involvement of prostaglandins is crucial in wound healing. Prostaglandin E2 plays a notable role and is positively correlated with the rate of wound healing.5 The cyclooxygenase pathway, pivotal for prostaglandin synthesis, becomes a target for inflammation control.4,5,10 Although aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly are employed, their impact on wound healing remains controversial, as inhibition of cyclooxygenase may disrupt normal repair processes.5,17,18

Wound healing exhibits variations depending on age. Fetal skin regeneration is marked by the restoration of normal dermal architecture, including adnexal structures, nerves, vessels, and muscle.4-6 The distinctive characteristics of fetal wound healing include a unique profile of growth factors, a diminished inflammatory response, reduced biomechanical stress, and a distinct extracellular matrix composition.19 These factors contribute to a lower propensity for scar formation compared to the healing processes observed in adults. Fetal and adult wound healing differ fundamentally in their extracellular matrix composition, inflammatory cells, and cytokine levels.4-6,19 Adult wounds feature myofibroblasts, which are absent in fetal wounds, contributing to heightened mechanical tension.5 Delving deeper into the biochemical basis of fetal wound healing holds promise for mitigating scar formation in adults.

Takeaways From Other Species

Much of the biochemical knowledge of wound healing, especially regenerative wound healing, is known from other species. Geckos provide a unique model for studying regenerative repair in tails and nonregenerative healing in limbs after amputation. Scar-free wound healing is characterized by rapid wound closure, delayed blood vessel development, and collagen deposition, which contrasts with the hypervascular granulation tissue seen in scarring wounds.20 Scar-free wound healing and regeneration are intrinsic properties of the lizard tail and are unaffected by the location or method of detachment.21

Compared to amphibians with extraordinary regenerative capacity, data suggest the lack of regenerative capacity in mammals may come from a desynchronization of the fine-tuned interplay of progenitor cells such as blastema and differentiated cells.22,23 In mice, the response to amputation is specific to the level: cutting through the distal third of the terminal phalanx elicits a regeneration response, yielding a new digit tip resembling the lost one, while an amputation through the distal third of the intermediate phalanx triggers a wound healing and scarring response.24

Wound Healing Following Limb Amputation

Limb amputation represents a profound change in an individual’s life, impacting daily activities and overall well-being. There are many causes of amputation, but the most common include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and trauma.25-27 Trauma represents a relatively common cause within the US Military due to the overall young population as well as inherent risks of uniformed service.25,27 Advances in protective gear and combat casualty care have led to an increased number of individuals surviving with extremity injuries requiring amputation, particularly among younger service members, with a subgroup experiencing multiple amputations.27-29

 

 

Numerous factors play a crucial role in the healing and function of postamputation wounds. The level of amputation is a key determinant influencing both functional outcomes and the healing process. Achieving a balance between preserving function and removing damaged tissue is essential. A study investigating cardiac function and oxygen consumption in 25 patients with peripheral vascular disease found higher-level amputations resulted in decreased walking speed and cadence, along with increased oxygen consumption per meter walked.30

Selecting the appropriate amputation level is vital to optimize functional outcomes without compromising wound healing. Successful prosthetic limb fitting depends largely on the length of the residual stump to support the body load and suspend the prosthesis. For long bone amputations, maintaining at least 12-cm clearance above the knee joint in transfemoral amputees and 10-cm below the knee joint in transtibial amputees is critical for maximizing functional outcomes.31

Surgical technique also is paramount. The goal is to minimize the risk for pressure ulcers by avoiding bony spurs and muscle imbalances. Shaping the muscle and residual limb is essential for proper prosthesis fitting. Attention to neurovascular structures, such as burying nerve ends to prevent neuropathic pain during prosthesis wear, is crucial.32 In extremity amputations, surgeons often resort to free flap transfer techniques for stump reconstruction. In a study of 31 patients with severe lower extremity injuries undergoing various amputations, the use of latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps, alone or in combination with serratus anterior muscle flaps, resulted in fewer instances of deep ulceration and allowed for earlier prosthesis wear.33

Addressing Barriers to Wound Healing

Multiple barriers to successful wound healing are encountered in the amputee population. Amputations from trauma have a less-controlled initiation, which carries with it a higher risk for infection, poor wound healing, and other complications.

Infection—Infection often is one of the first hurdles encountered in postamputation wound healing. Critical first steps in infection prevention include thorough cleaning of soiled traumatic wounds and appropriate tissue debridement coupled with scrupulous sterile technique and postoperative monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection.

In a retrospective study of 223 combat-related major lower extremity amputations (initial and revision) between 2009 and 2015, the use of intrawound antibiotic powder at the time of closure demonstrated a 13% absolute risk reduction in deep infection rates, which was particularly notable in revision amputations, with a number needed to treat of 8 for initial amputations and 4 for revision amputations on previously infected limbs.34 Intra-operative antibiotic powder may represent a cheap and easy consideration for this special population of amputees. Postamputation antibiotic prophylaxis for infection prevention is an area of controversy. For nontraumatic infections, data suggest antibiotic prophylaxis may not decrease infection rates in these patients.35,36

Interestingly, a study by Azarbal et al37 aimed to investigate the correlation between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with wound occurrence following major lower extremity amputation. The study found MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall wound occurrence as well as wound occurrence due to wound infection. These data suggest nasal MRSA eradication may improve postoperative wound outcomes after major lower extremity amputation.37

 

 

Dressing Choice—The dressing chosen for a residual limb also is of paramount importance following amputation. The personalized and dynamic management of postamputation wounds and skin involves achieving optimal healing through a dressing that sustains appropriate moisture levels, addresses edema, helps prevent contractures, and safeguards the limb.38 From the start, using negative pressure wound dressings after surgical amputation can decrease wound-related complications.39

Topical oxygen therapy following amputation also shows promise. In a retrospective case series by Kalliainen et al,40 topical oxygen therapy applied to 58 wounds in 32 patients over 9 months demonstrated positive outcomes in promoting wound healing, with 38 wounds (66%) healing completely with the use of topical oxygen. Minimal complications and no detrimental effects were observed.40

Current recommendations suggest that non–weight-bearing removable rigid dressings are the superior postoperative management for transtibial amputations compared to soft dressings, offering benefits such as faster healing, reduced limb edema, earlier ambulation, preparatory shaping for prosthetic use, and prevention of knee flexion contractures.41-46 Similarly, adding a silicone liner following amputation significantly reduced the duration of prosthetic rehabilitation compared with a conventional soft dressing program in one study (P<.05).47

Specifically targeting wound edema, a case series by Hoskins et al48 investigated the impact of prostheses with vacuum-assisted suspension on the size of residual limb wounds in individuals with transtibial amputation. Well-fitting sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension did not impede wound healing, and the results suggest the potential for continued prosthesis use during the healing process.48 However, a study by Johannesson et al49 compared the outcomes of transtibial amputation patients using a vacuum-formed rigid dressing and a conventional rigid plaster dressing, finding no significant differences in wound healing, time to prosthetic fitting, or functional outcomes with the prosthesis between the 2 groups. When comparing elastic bandaging, pneumatic prosthesis, and temporary prosthesis on postoperative stump management, temporary prosthesis led to a decrease in stump volume, quicker transition to a permanent prosthesis, and improved quality of life compared with elastic bandaging and pneumatic prosthetics.50

The type of material in dressings may contribute to utility in amputation wounds. Keratin-based wound dressings show promise for wound healing, especially in recalcitrant vascular wounds.51 There also are numerous proprietary wound dressings available for patients, at least one of which has particularly thorough data. In a retrospective study of more than 2 million lower extremity wounds across 644 institutions, a proprietary bioactive human skin allograft (TheraSkin [LifeNet Health]) demonstrated higher healing rates, greater percentage area reductions, lower amputations, reduced recidivism, higher treatment completion, and fewer medical transfers compared with standard of care alone.52

Postamputation Dermatologic Concerns

After the postamputation wound heals, a notable concern is the prevalence of skin diseases affecting residual limbs. The stump site in amputees, marked by a delicate cutaneous landscape vulnerable to skin diseases, faces challenges arising from amputation-induced damage to various structures.53

When integrated into a prosthesis socket, the altered skin must acclimate to a humid environment and endure forces for which it is not well suited, especially during movement.53 Amputation remarkably alters normal tissue perfusion, which can lead to aberrant blood and lymphatic circulation in residual limbs.27,53 This compromised skin, often associated with a history of vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignancy, becomes immunocompromised, heightening the risk for dermatologic issues such as inflammation, infection, and malignancies.53 Unlike the resilient volar skin on palms and soles, stump skin lacks adaptation to withstand the compressive forces generated during ambulation, sometimes leading to skin disease and pain that result in abandonment of the prosthesis.53,54 Mechanical forces on the skin, especially in active patients eager to resume pre-injury lifestyles, contribute to skin breakdown. The dynamic nature of the residual limb, including muscle atrophy, gait changes, and weight fluctuations, complicates the prosthetic fitting process. Prosthesis abandonment remains a challenge, despite modern technologic advancements.

 

 

The occurrence of heterotopic ossification (extraskeletal bone formation) is another notable issue in military amputees.27,55-57 Poor prosthetic fit can lead to skin degradation, necessitating further surgery to address mispositioned bone formations. Orthopedic monitoring supplemented by appropriate imaging studies can benefit postamputation patients by detecting and preventing heterotopic ossification in its early stages.

Dermatologic issues, especially among lower limb amputees, are noteworthy, with a substantial percentage experiencing complications related to socket prosthetics, such as heat, sweating, sores, and skin irritation. Up to 41% of patients are seen regularly for a secondary skin disorder following amputation.58 As one might expect, persistent wounds, blisters, ulcers, and abscesses are some of the most typical cutaneous abnormalities affecting residual limbs with prostheses.27,58 More rare skin conditions also are documented in residual limbs, including cutaneous granuloma, verrucous carcinoma, bullous pemphigoid, and angiodermatitis.27,59-61

Treatments offered in the dermatology clinic often are similar to patients who have not had an amputation. For instance, hyperhidrosis can be treated with prescription antiperspirant, topical aluminum chloride, topical glycopyrronium, botulinum toxin, and iontophoresis, which can greatly decrease skin irritation and malodor. Subcutaneous neurotoxins such as botulinum toxin are especially useful for hyperhidrosis following amputation because a single treatment can last 3 to 6 months, whereas topicals must be applied multiple times per day and can be inherently irritating to the skin.27,62 Furthermore, ablative fractional resurfacing lasers also can help stimulate new collagen growth, increase skin mobility on residual limbs, smooth jagged scars, and aid prosthetic fitting.27,63 Perforated prosthetic liners also may be useful to address issues such as excessive sweating, demonstrating improvements in skin health, reduced sweating problems, and potential avoidance of surgical interventions.64

When comorbid skin conditions are at bay, preventive measures for excessive wound healing necessitate early recognition and timely intervention for residual limbs. Preventive techniques encompass the use of silicone gel sheeting, hypoallergenic microporous tape, and intralesional steroid injections.

Psychological Concerns—An overarching issue following amputation is the psychological toll the process imposes on the patient. Psychological concerns, including anxiety and depression, present additional challenges impacting residual limb hygiene and prosthetic maintenance. Chronic wounds are devastating to patients. These patients consistently express feeling ostracized from their community and anxious about unemployment, leaking fluid, or odor from the wound, as well as other social stigmata.62 Depression and anxiety can hinder a patient’s ability to care for their wound and make them more susceptible to the myriad issues that can ensue.

Recent Developments in Wound Healing

Wound healing is ripe for innovation that could assuage ailments that impact patients following amputation. A 2022 study by Abu El Hawa et al65 illustrated advanced progression in wound healing for patients taking statins, even though the statin group had increased age and number of comorbidities compared with patients not taking statins.

Nasseri and Sharifi66 showed the potential of antimicrobial peptides—small proteins with cationic charges and amphipathic structures exhibiting electrostatic interaction with microbial cell membranes—in promoting wound healing, particularly defensins and cathelicidin LL-37.They also discussed innovative delivery systems, such as nanoparticles and electrospun fibrous scaffolds, highlighting their potential as possibly more effective therapeutics than antibiotics, especially in the context of diabetic wound closure.66 Aimed at increased angiogenesis in the proliferative phase, there is evidence that N-acetylcysteine can increase amputation stump perfusion with the goal of better long-term wound healing and more efficient scar formation.67

Stem cell therapy, particularly employing cells from the human amniotic membrane, represents an auspicious avenue for antifibrotic treatment. Amniotic epithelial cells and amniotic mesenchymal cells, with their self-renewal and multilineage differentiation capabilities, exhibit anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.4,5 A study by Dong et al68 aimed to assess the efficacy of cell therapy, particularly differentiated progenitor cell–based graft transplantation or autologous stem cell injection, in treating refractory skin injuries such as nonrevascularizable critical limb ischemic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and diabetic lower limb ulcers. The findings demonstrated cell therapy effectively reduced the size of ulcers, improved wound closure rates, and decreased major amputation rates compared with standard therapy. Of note, cell therapy had limited impact on alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischemia-related cutaneous ulcers.68

Final Thoughts

Wound care following amputation is a multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration between many health care professionals. Dermatologists play a crucial role in providing routine care as well as addressing wound healing and related skin issues among amputation patients. As the field progresses, dermatologists are well positioned to make notable contributions and ensure enhanced outcomes, resulting in a better quality of life for patients facing the challenges of limb amputation and prosthetic use.

Restoring skin integrity and balance after injury is vital for survival, serving as a crucial defense mechanism against potential infections by preventing the entry of harmful pathogens. Moreover, proper healing is essential for restoring normal tissue function, allowing damaged tissues to repair and, in an ideal scenario, regenerate. Timely healing helps reduce the risk for complications, such as chronic wounds, which could lead to more severe issues if left untreated. Additionally, pain relief often is associated with effective wound healing as inflammatory responses diminish during the repair process.

The immune system plays a pivotal role in wound healing, influencing various repair mechanisms and ultimately determining the extent of scarring. Although inflammation is present throughout the repair response, recent studies have challenged the conventional belief of an inverse correlation between the intensity of inflammation and regenerative capacity. Inflammatory signals were found to be crucial for timely repair and fundamental processes in regeneration, possibly presenting a paradigm shift in the understanding of immunology.1-4 The complexities of wound healing are exemplified when evaluating and treating postamputation wounds. To address such a task, one needs a firm understanding of the science behind healing wounds and what can go wrong along the way.

Phases of Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process that involves a series of sequential yet overlapping phases, including hemostasis/inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling.

Hemostasis/Inflammation—The initial stage of wound healing involves hemostasis, in which the primary objective is to prevent blood loss and initiate inflammation. Platelets arrive at the wound site, forming a provisional clot that is crucial for subsequent healing phases.4-6 Platelets halt bleeding as well as act as a medium for cell migration and adhesion; they also are a source of growth factors and proinflammatory cytokines that herald the inflammatory response.4-7

Inflammation is characterized by the infiltration of immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages. Neutrophils act as the first line of defense, clearing debris and preventing infection. Macrophages follow, phagocytizing apoptotic cells and releasing growth factors such as tumor necrosis factor α, vascular endothelial growth factor, and matrix metalloprotease 9, which stimulate the next phase.4-6,8 Typically, the hemostasis and inflammatory phase starts approximately 6 to 8 hours after wound origin and lasts 3 to 4 days.4,6,7

Proliferation—Following hemostasis and inflammation, the wound transitions into the proliferation phase, which is marked by the development of granulation tissue—a dynamic amalgamation of fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and inflammatory cells.1,4-8 Fibroblasts play a central role in synthesizing collagen, the primary structural protein in connective tissue. They also orchestrate synthesis of vitronectin, fibronectin, fibrin, and tenascin.4-6,8 Simultaneously, angiogenesis takes place, involving the creation of new blood vessels to supply essential nutrients and oxygen to the healing tissue.4,7,9 Growth factors such as transforming growth factor β and vascular endothelial growth factor coordinate cellular activities and foster tissue repair.4-6,8 The proliferation phase extends over days to weeks, laying the groundwork for subsequent tissue restructuring.

Remodeling—The final stage of wound healing is remodeling, an extended process that may persist for several months or, in some cases, years. Throughout this phase, the initially deposited collagen, predominantly type III collagen, undergoes transformation into mature type I collagen.4-6,8 This transformation is critical for reinstating the tissue’s strength and functionality. The balance between collagen synthesis and degradation is delicate, regulated by matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors of metalloproteinases.4-8 Fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, and other cells coordinate this intricate process of tissue reorganization.4-7

 

 

The eventual outcome of the remodeling phase determines the appearance and functionality of the healed tissue. Any disruption in this phase can lead to complications, such as chronic wounds and hypertrophic scars/keloids.4-6 These abnormal healing processes are characterized by localized inflammation, heightened fibroblast function, and excessive accumulation of the extracellular matrix.4-8

Molecular Mechanisms

Comprehensive investigations—both in vivo and in vitro—have explored the intricate molecular mechanisms involved in heightened wound healing. Transforming growth factor β takes center stage as a crucial factor, prompting the transformation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts and contributing to the deposition of extracellular matrix.2,4-8,10 Transforming growth factor β activates non-Smad signaling pathways, such as MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), influencing processes associated with fibrosis.5,11 Furthermore, microRNAs play a pivotal role in posttranscriptional regulation, influencing both transforming growth factor β signaling and fibroblast behavior.12-16

The involvement of prostaglandins is crucial in wound healing. Prostaglandin E2 plays a notable role and is positively correlated with the rate of wound healing.5 The cyclooxygenase pathway, pivotal for prostaglandin synthesis, becomes a target for inflammation control.4,5,10 Although aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs commonly are employed, their impact on wound healing remains controversial, as inhibition of cyclooxygenase may disrupt normal repair processes.5,17,18

Wound healing exhibits variations depending on age. Fetal skin regeneration is marked by the restoration of normal dermal architecture, including adnexal structures, nerves, vessels, and muscle.4-6 The distinctive characteristics of fetal wound healing include a unique profile of growth factors, a diminished inflammatory response, reduced biomechanical stress, and a distinct extracellular matrix composition.19 These factors contribute to a lower propensity for scar formation compared to the healing processes observed in adults. Fetal and adult wound healing differ fundamentally in their extracellular matrix composition, inflammatory cells, and cytokine levels.4-6,19 Adult wounds feature myofibroblasts, which are absent in fetal wounds, contributing to heightened mechanical tension.5 Delving deeper into the biochemical basis of fetal wound healing holds promise for mitigating scar formation in adults.

Takeaways From Other Species

Much of the biochemical knowledge of wound healing, especially regenerative wound healing, is known from other species. Geckos provide a unique model for studying regenerative repair in tails and nonregenerative healing in limbs after amputation. Scar-free wound healing is characterized by rapid wound closure, delayed blood vessel development, and collagen deposition, which contrasts with the hypervascular granulation tissue seen in scarring wounds.20 Scar-free wound healing and regeneration are intrinsic properties of the lizard tail and are unaffected by the location or method of detachment.21

Compared to amphibians with extraordinary regenerative capacity, data suggest the lack of regenerative capacity in mammals may come from a desynchronization of the fine-tuned interplay of progenitor cells such as blastema and differentiated cells.22,23 In mice, the response to amputation is specific to the level: cutting through the distal third of the terminal phalanx elicits a regeneration response, yielding a new digit tip resembling the lost one, while an amputation through the distal third of the intermediate phalanx triggers a wound healing and scarring response.24

Wound Healing Following Limb Amputation

Limb amputation represents a profound change in an individual’s life, impacting daily activities and overall well-being. There are many causes of amputation, but the most common include cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and trauma.25-27 Trauma represents a relatively common cause within the US Military due to the overall young population as well as inherent risks of uniformed service.25,27 Advances in protective gear and combat casualty care have led to an increased number of individuals surviving with extremity injuries requiring amputation, particularly among younger service members, with a subgroup experiencing multiple amputations.27-29

 

 

Numerous factors play a crucial role in the healing and function of postamputation wounds. The level of amputation is a key determinant influencing both functional outcomes and the healing process. Achieving a balance between preserving function and removing damaged tissue is essential. A study investigating cardiac function and oxygen consumption in 25 patients with peripheral vascular disease found higher-level amputations resulted in decreased walking speed and cadence, along with increased oxygen consumption per meter walked.30

Selecting the appropriate amputation level is vital to optimize functional outcomes without compromising wound healing. Successful prosthetic limb fitting depends largely on the length of the residual stump to support the body load and suspend the prosthesis. For long bone amputations, maintaining at least 12-cm clearance above the knee joint in transfemoral amputees and 10-cm below the knee joint in transtibial amputees is critical for maximizing functional outcomes.31

Surgical technique also is paramount. The goal is to minimize the risk for pressure ulcers by avoiding bony spurs and muscle imbalances. Shaping the muscle and residual limb is essential for proper prosthesis fitting. Attention to neurovascular structures, such as burying nerve ends to prevent neuropathic pain during prosthesis wear, is crucial.32 In extremity amputations, surgeons often resort to free flap transfer techniques for stump reconstruction. In a study of 31 patients with severe lower extremity injuries undergoing various amputations, the use of latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps, alone or in combination with serratus anterior muscle flaps, resulted in fewer instances of deep ulceration and allowed for earlier prosthesis wear.33

Addressing Barriers to Wound Healing

Multiple barriers to successful wound healing are encountered in the amputee population. Amputations from trauma have a less-controlled initiation, which carries with it a higher risk for infection, poor wound healing, and other complications.

Infection—Infection often is one of the first hurdles encountered in postamputation wound healing. Critical first steps in infection prevention include thorough cleaning of soiled traumatic wounds and appropriate tissue debridement coupled with scrupulous sterile technique and postoperative monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection.

In a retrospective study of 223 combat-related major lower extremity amputations (initial and revision) between 2009 and 2015, the use of intrawound antibiotic powder at the time of closure demonstrated a 13% absolute risk reduction in deep infection rates, which was particularly notable in revision amputations, with a number needed to treat of 8 for initial amputations and 4 for revision amputations on previously infected limbs.34 Intra-operative antibiotic powder may represent a cheap and easy consideration for this special population of amputees. Postamputation antibiotic prophylaxis for infection prevention is an area of controversy. For nontraumatic infections, data suggest antibiotic prophylaxis may not decrease infection rates in these patients.35,36

Interestingly, a study by Azarbal et al37 aimed to investigate the correlation between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and other patient factors with wound occurrence following major lower extremity amputation. The study found MRSA colonization was associated with higher rates of overall wound occurrence as well as wound occurrence due to wound infection. These data suggest nasal MRSA eradication may improve postoperative wound outcomes after major lower extremity amputation.37

 

 

Dressing Choice—The dressing chosen for a residual limb also is of paramount importance following amputation. The personalized and dynamic management of postamputation wounds and skin involves achieving optimal healing through a dressing that sustains appropriate moisture levels, addresses edema, helps prevent contractures, and safeguards the limb.38 From the start, using negative pressure wound dressings after surgical amputation can decrease wound-related complications.39

Topical oxygen therapy following amputation also shows promise. In a retrospective case series by Kalliainen et al,40 topical oxygen therapy applied to 58 wounds in 32 patients over 9 months demonstrated positive outcomes in promoting wound healing, with 38 wounds (66%) healing completely with the use of topical oxygen. Minimal complications and no detrimental effects were observed.40

Current recommendations suggest that non–weight-bearing removable rigid dressings are the superior postoperative management for transtibial amputations compared to soft dressings, offering benefits such as faster healing, reduced limb edema, earlier ambulation, preparatory shaping for prosthetic use, and prevention of knee flexion contractures.41-46 Similarly, adding a silicone liner following amputation significantly reduced the duration of prosthetic rehabilitation compared with a conventional soft dressing program in one study (P<.05).47

Specifically targeting wound edema, a case series by Hoskins et al48 investigated the impact of prostheses with vacuum-assisted suspension on the size of residual limb wounds in individuals with transtibial amputation. Well-fitting sockets with vacuum-assisted suspension did not impede wound healing, and the results suggest the potential for continued prosthesis use during the healing process.48 However, a study by Johannesson et al49 compared the outcomes of transtibial amputation patients using a vacuum-formed rigid dressing and a conventional rigid plaster dressing, finding no significant differences in wound healing, time to prosthetic fitting, or functional outcomes with the prosthesis between the 2 groups. When comparing elastic bandaging, pneumatic prosthesis, and temporary prosthesis on postoperative stump management, temporary prosthesis led to a decrease in stump volume, quicker transition to a permanent prosthesis, and improved quality of life compared with elastic bandaging and pneumatic prosthetics.50

The type of material in dressings may contribute to utility in amputation wounds. Keratin-based wound dressings show promise for wound healing, especially in recalcitrant vascular wounds.51 There also are numerous proprietary wound dressings available for patients, at least one of which has particularly thorough data. In a retrospective study of more than 2 million lower extremity wounds across 644 institutions, a proprietary bioactive human skin allograft (TheraSkin [LifeNet Health]) demonstrated higher healing rates, greater percentage area reductions, lower amputations, reduced recidivism, higher treatment completion, and fewer medical transfers compared with standard of care alone.52

Postamputation Dermatologic Concerns

After the postamputation wound heals, a notable concern is the prevalence of skin diseases affecting residual limbs. The stump site in amputees, marked by a delicate cutaneous landscape vulnerable to skin diseases, faces challenges arising from amputation-induced damage to various structures.53

When integrated into a prosthesis socket, the altered skin must acclimate to a humid environment and endure forces for which it is not well suited, especially during movement.53 Amputation remarkably alters normal tissue perfusion, which can lead to aberrant blood and lymphatic circulation in residual limbs.27,53 This compromised skin, often associated with a history of vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or malignancy, becomes immunocompromised, heightening the risk for dermatologic issues such as inflammation, infection, and malignancies.53 Unlike the resilient volar skin on palms and soles, stump skin lacks adaptation to withstand the compressive forces generated during ambulation, sometimes leading to skin disease and pain that result in abandonment of the prosthesis.53,54 Mechanical forces on the skin, especially in active patients eager to resume pre-injury lifestyles, contribute to skin breakdown. The dynamic nature of the residual limb, including muscle atrophy, gait changes, and weight fluctuations, complicates the prosthetic fitting process. Prosthesis abandonment remains a challenge, despite modern technologic advancements.

 

 

The occurrence of heterotopic ossification (extraskeletal bone formation) is another notable issue in military amputees.27,55-57 Poor prosthetic fit can lead to skin degradation, necessitating further surgery to address mispositioned bone formations. Orthopedic monitoring supplemented by appropriate imaging studies can benefit postamputation patients by detecting and preventing heterotopic ossification in its early stages.

Dermatologic issues, especially among lower limb amputees, are noteworthy, with a substantial percentage experiencing complications related to socket prosthetics, such as heat, sweating, sores, and skin irritation. Up to 41% of patients are seen regularly for a secondary skin disorder following amputation.58 As one might expect, persistent wounds, blisters, ulcers, and abscesses are some of the most typical cutaneous abnormalities affecting residual limbs with prostheses.27,58 More rare skin conditions also are documented in residual limbs, including cutaneous granuloma, verrucous carcinoma, bullous pemphigoid, and angiodermatitis.27,59-61

Treatments offered in the dermatology clinic often are similar to patients who have not had an amputation. For instance, hyperhidrosis can be treated with prescription antiperspirant, topical aluminum chloride, topical glycopyrronium, botulinum toxin, and iontophoresis, which can greatly decrease skin irritation and malodor. Subcutaneous neurotoxins such as botulinum toxin are especially useful for hyperhidrosis following amputation because a single treatment can last 3 to 6 months, whereas topicals must be applied multiple times per day and can be inherently irritating to the skin.27,62 Furthermore, ablative fractional resurfacing lasers also can help stimulate new collagen growth, increase skin mobility on residual limbs, smooth jagged scars, and aid prosthetic fitting.27,63 Perforated prosthetic liners also may be useful to address issues such as excessive sweating, demonstrating improvements in skin health, reduced sweating problems, and potential avoidance of surgical interventions.64

When comorbid skin conditions are at bay, preventive measures for excessive wound healing necessitate early recognition and timely intervention for residual limbs. Preventive techniques encompass the use of silicone gel sheeting, hypoallergenic microporous tape, and intralesional steroid injections.

Psychological Concerns—An overarching issue following amputation is the psychological toll the process imposes on the patient. Psychological concerns, including anxiety and depression, present additional challenges impacting residual limb hygiene and prosthetic maintenance. Chronic wounds are devastating to patients. These patients consistently express feeling ostracized from their community and anxious about unemployment, leaking fluid, or odor from the wound, as well as other social stigmata.62 Depression and anxiety can hinder a patient’s ability to care for their wound and make them more susceptible to the myriad issues that can ensue.

Recent Developments in Wound Healing

Wound healing is ripe for innovation that could assuage ailments that impact patients following amputation. A 2022 study by Abu El Hawa et al65 illustrated advanced progression in wound healing for patients taking statins, even though the statin group had increased age and number of comorbidities compared with patients not taking statins.

Nasseri and Sharifi66 showed the potential of antimicrobial peptides—small proteins with cationic charges and amphipathic structures exhibiting electrostatic interaction with microbial cell membranes—in promoting wound healing, particularly defensins and cathelicidin LL-37.They also discussed innovative delivery systems, such as nanoparticles and electrospun fibrous scaffolds, highlighting their potential as possibly more effective therapeutics than antibiotics, especially in the context of diabetic wound closure.66 Aimed at increased angiogenesis in the proliferative phase, there is evidence that N-acetylcysteine can increase amputation stump perfusion with the goal of better long-term wound healing and more efficient scar formation.67

Stem cell therapy, particularly employing cells from the human amniotic membrane, represents an auspicious avenue for antifibrotic treatment. Amniotic epithelial cells and amniotic mesenchymal cells, with their self-renewal and multilineage differentiation capabilities, exhibit anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.4,5 A study by Dong et al68 aimed to assess the efficacy of cell therapy, particularly differentiated progenitor cell–based graft transplantation or autologous stem cell injection, in treating refractory skin injuries such as nonrevascularizable critical limb ischemic ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and diabetic lower limb ulcers. The findings demonstrated cell therapy effectively reduced the size of ulcers, improved wound closure rates, and decreased major amputation rates compared with standard therapy. Of note, cell therapy had limited impact on alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischemia-related cutaneous ulcers.68

Final Thoughts

Wound care following amputation is a multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration between many health care professionals. Dermatologists play a crucial role in providing routine care as well as addressing wound healing and related skin issues among amputation patients. As the field progresses, dermatologists are well positioned to make notable contributions and ensure enhanced outcomes, resulting in a better quality of life for patients facing the challenges of limb amputation and prosthetic use.

References
  1. Brockes JP, Kumar A. Comparative aspects of animal regeneration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2008;24:525-549. doi:10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175336
  2. Eming SA, Hammerschmidt M, Krieg T, et al. Interrelation of immunity and tissue repair or regeneration. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2009;20:517-527. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.04.009
  3. Eming SA. Evolution of immune pathways in regeneration and repair: recent concepts and translational perspectives. Semin Immunol. 2014;26:275-276. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2014.09.001
  4. Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JJ, Schaffer JV, et al. Dermatology. 4th edition. Elsevier; 2018.
  5. Wang PH, Huang BS, Horng HC, et al. Wound healing. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2018;81:94-101. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.11.002
  6. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1528-1542. doi:10.1177/147323000903700531
  7. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, et al. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453:314-321. doi:10.1038/nature07039
  8. Eming SA, Martin P, Tomic-Canic M. Wound repair and regeneration: mechanisms, signaling, and translation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:265sr6. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3009337
  9. Eming SA, Brachvogel B, Odorisio T, et al. Regulation of angiogenesis: wound healing as a model. Prog Histochem Cytochem. 2007;42:115-170. doi:10.1016/j.proghi.2007.06.001
  10. Janis JE, Harrison B. Wound healing: part I. basic science. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3 suppl):9S-17S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002773
  11. Profyris C, Tziotzios C, Do Vale I. Cutaneous scarring: pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms, and scar reduction therapeutics. part I: the molecular basis of scar formation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66:1-10; quiz 11-12. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.05.055
  12. Kwan P, Ding J, Tredget EE. MicroRNA 181b regulates decorin production by dermal fibroblasts and may be a potential therapy for hypertrophic scar. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123054
  13. Ben W, Yang Y, Yuan J, et al. Human papillomavirus 16 E6 modulates the expression of host microRNAs in cervical cancer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;54:364-370. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2014.06.007
  14. Yu EH, Tu HF, Wu CH, et al. MicroRNA-21 promotes perineural invasion and impacts survival in patients with oral carcinoma. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2017;80:383-388. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.01.003
  15. Wen KC, Sung PL, Yen MS, et al. MicroRNAs regulate several functions of normal tissues and malignancies. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;52:465-469. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2013.10.002
  16. Babalola O, Mamalis A, Lev-Tov H, et al. The role of microRNAs in skin fibrosis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013;305:763-776. doi:10.1007/s00403-013-1410-1
  17. Hofer M, Hoferová Z, Falk M. Pharmacological modulation of radiation damage. does it exist a chance for other substances than hematopoietic growth factors and cytokines? Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:1385. doi:10.3390/ijms18071385
  18. Darby IA, Weller CD. Aspirin treatment for chronic wounds: potential beneficial and inhibitory effects. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25:7-12. doi:10.1111/wrr.12502
  19. Khalid KA, Nawi AFM, Zulkifli N, et al. Aging and wound healing of the skin: a review of clinical and pathophysiological hallmarks. Life. 2022;12:2142. doi:10.3390/life12122142
  20. Peacock HM, Gilbert EAB, Vickaryous MK. Scar‐free cutaneous wound healing in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius. J Anat. 2015;227:596-610. doi:10.1111/joa.12368
  21. Delorme SL, Lungu IM, Vickaryous MK. Scar‐free wound healing and regeneration following tail loss in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius. Anat Rec. 2012;295:1575-1595. doi:10.1002/ar.22490
  22. Brunauer R, Xia IG, Asrar SN, et al. Aging delays epimorphic regeneration in mice. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76:1726-1733. doi:10.1093/gerona/glab131
  23. Dolan CP, Yang TJ, Zimmel K, et al. Epimorphic regeneration of the mouse digit tip is finite. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13:62. doi:10.1186/s13287-022-02741-2
  24. Simkin J, Han M, Yu L, et al. The mouse digit tip: from wound healing to regeneration. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ. 2013;1037:419-435. doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-505-7_24
  25. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422-429. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005
  26. Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, et al. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:659-663. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.09.003
  27. Lannan FM, Meyerle JH. The dermatologist’s role in amputee skin care. Cutis. 2019;103:86-90.
  28. Dougherty AL, Mohrle CR, Galarneau MR, et al. Battlefield extremity injuries in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Injury. 2009;40:772-777. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.02.014
  29. Epstein RA, Heinemann AW, McFarland LV. Quality of life for veterans and servicemembers with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:373-385. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.03.0023
  30. Pinzur MS, Gold J, Schwartz D, et al. Energy demands for walking in dysvascular amputees as related to the level of amputation. Orthopedics. 1992;15:1033-1036; discussion 1036-1037. doi:10.3928/0147-7447-19920901-07
  31. Robinson V, Sansam K, Hirst L, et al. Major lower limb amputation–what, why and how to achieve the best results. Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:276-285. doi:10.1016/j.mporth.2010.03.017
  32. Lu S, Wang C, Zhong W, et al. Amputation stump revision using a free sural neurocutaneous perforator flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:83-87. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000211
  33. Kim SW, Jeon SB, Hwang KT, et al. Coverage of amputation stumps using a latissimus dorsi flap with a serratus anterior muscle flap: a comparative study. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:88-93. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000220
  34. Pavey GJ, Formby PM, Hoyt BW, et al. Intrawound antibiotic powder decreases frequency of deep infection and severity of heterotopic ossification in combat lower extremity amputations. Clin Orthop. 2019;477:802-810. doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000090
  35. Dunkel N, Belaieff W, Assal M, et al. Wound dehiscence and stump infection after lower limb amputation: risk factors and association with antibiotic use. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2012;17:588-594. doi:10.1007/s00776-012-0245-5
  36. Rubin G, Orbach H, Rinott M, et al. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in treatment of fingertip amputation: a randomized prospective trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33:645-647. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.002
  37. Azarbal AF, Harris S, Mitchell EL, et al. Nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization is associated with increased wound occurrence after major lower extremity amputation. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:401-405. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2015.02.052
  38. Kwasniewski M, Mitchel D. Post amputation skin and wound care. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2022;33:857-870. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2022.06.010
  39. Chang H, Maldonado TS, Rockman CB, et al. Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy may decrease wound complications in major lower extremity amputations. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:1041-1047. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.061
  40. Kalliainen LK, Gordillo GM, Schlanger R, et al. Topical oxygen as an adjunct to wound healing: a clinical case series. Pathophysiol Off J Int Soc Pathophysiol. 2003;9:81-87. doi:10.1016/s0928-4680(02)00079-2
  41. Reichmann JP, Stevens PM, Rheinstein J, et al. Removable rigid dressings for postoperative management of transtibial amputations: a review of published evidence. PM R. 2018;10:516-523. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.10.002
  42. MacLean N, Fick GH. The effect of semirigid dressings on below-knee amputations. Phys Ther. 1994;74:668-673. doi:10.1093/ptj/74.7.668
  43. Koonalinthip N, Sukthongsa A, Janchai S. Comparison of removable rigid dressing and elastic bandage for residual limb maturation in transtibial amputees: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101:1683-1688. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.05.009
  44. Taylor L, Cavenett S, Stepien JM, et al. Removable rigid dressings: a retrospective case-note audit to determine the validity of post-amputation application. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:223-230. doi:10.1080/03093640802016795
  45. Sumpio B, Shine SR, Mahler D, et al. A comparison of immediate postoperative rigid and soft dressings for below-knee amputations. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:774-780. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2013.03.007
  46. van Velzen AD, Nederhand MJ, Emmelot CH, et al. Early treatment of trans-tibial amputees: retrospective analysis of early fitting and elastic bandaging. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:3-12. doi:10.1080/17461550500069588
  47. Chin T, Toda M. Results of prosthetic rehabilitation on managing transtibial vascular amputation with silicone liner after wound closure. J Int Med Res. 2016;44:957-967. doi:10.1177/0300060516647554
  48. Hoskins RD, Sutton EE, Kinor D, et al. Using vacuum-assisted suspension to manage residual limb wounds in persons with transtibial amputation: a case series. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:68-74. doi:10.1177/0309364613487547
  49. Johannesson A, Larsson GU, Oberg T, et al. Comparison of vacuum-formed removable rigid dressing with conventional rigid dressing after transtibial amputation: similar outcome in a randomized controlled trial involving 27 patients. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:361-369. doi:10.1080/17453670710015265
  50. Alsancak S, Köse SK, Altınkaynak H. Effect of elastic bandaging and prosthesis on the decrease in stump volume. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2011;45:14-22. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2011.2365
  51. Than MP, Smith RA, Hammond C, et al. Keratin-based wound care products for treatment of resistant vascular wounds. J Clin Aesthetic Dermatol. 2012;5:31-35.
  52. Gurtner GC, Garcia AD, Bakewell K, et al. A retrospective matched‐cohort study of 3994 lower extremity wounds of multiple etiologies across 644 institutions comparing a bioactive human skin allograft, TheraSkin, plus standard of care, to standard of care alone. Int Wound J. 2020;17:55-64. doi:10.1111/iwj.13231
  53. Buikema KES, Meyerle JH. Amputation stump: privileged harbor for infections, tumors, and immune disorders. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:670-677. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2014.04.015
  54. Yang NB, Garza LA, Foote CE, et al. High prevalence of stump dermatoses 38 years or more after amputation. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1283-1286. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2012.3004
  55. Potter BK, Burns TC, Lacap AP, et al. Heterotopic ossification following traumatic and combat-related amputations. Prevalence, risk factors, and preliminary results of excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:476-486. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00412
  56. Edwards DS, Kuhn KM, Potter BK, et al. Heterotopic ossification: a review of current understanding, treatment, and future. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(suppl 3):S27-S30. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000666
  57. Tintle SM, Shawen SB, Forsberg JA, et al. Reoperation after combat-related major lower extremity amputations. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:232-237. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182a53130
  58. Bui KM, Raugi GJ, Nguyen VQ, et al. Skin problems in individuals with lower-limb loss: literature review and proposed classification system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:1085-1090. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.04.0052
  59. Turan H, Bas¸kan EB, Adim SB, et al. Acroangiodermatitis in a below-knee amputation stump. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2011;36:560-561. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2011.04037.x
  60. Lin CH, Ma H, Chung MT, et al. Granulomatous cutaneous lesions associated with risperidone-induced hyperprolactinemia in an amputated upper limb. Int J Dermatol. 2012;51:75-78. doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2011.04906.x
  61. Schwartz RA, Bagley MP, Janniger CK, et al. Verrucous carcinoma of a leg amputation stump. Dermatologica. 1991;182:193-195. doi:10.1159/000247782
  62. Campanati A, Diotallevi F, Radi G, et al. Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin B in focal hyperhidrosis: a narrative review. Toxins. 2023;15:147. doi:10.3390/toxins15020147
  63. Anderson RR, Donelan MB, Hivnor C, et al. Laser treatment of traumatic scars with an emphasis on ablative fractional laser resurfacing: consensus report. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:187-193. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.7761
  64. McGrath M, McCarthy J, Gallego A, et al. The influence of perforated prosthetic liners on residual limb wound healing: a case report. Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2019;2:32723. doi:10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.32723
  65. Abu El Hawa AA, Klein D, Bekeny JC, et al. The impact of statins on wound healing: an ally in treating the highly comorbid patient. J Wound Care. 2022;31(suppl 2):S36-S41. doi:10.12968/jowc.2022.31.Sup2.S36
  66. Nasseri S, Sharifi M. Therapeutic potential of antimicrobial peptides for wound healing. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2022;28:38. doi:10.1007/s10989-021-10350-5
  67. Lee JV, Engel C, Tay S, et al. N-Acetyl-Cysteine treatment after lower extremity amputation improves areas of perfusion defect and wound healing outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:39-40. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.12.025
  68. Dong Y, Yang Q, Sun X. Comprehensive analysis of cell therapy on chronic skin wound healing: a meta-analysis. Hum Gene Ther. 2021;32:787-795. doi:10.1089/hum.2020.275
References
  1. Brockes JP, Kumar A. Comparative aspects of animal regeneration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2008;24:525-549. doi:10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175336
  2. Eming SA, Hammerschmidt M, Krieg T, et al. Interrelation of immunity and tissue repair or regeneration. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2009;20:517-527. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.04.009
  3. Eming SA. Evolution of immune pathways in regeneration and repair: recent concepts and translational perspectives. Semin Immunol. 2014;26:275-276. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2014.09.001
  4. Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JJ, Schaffer JV, et al. Dermatology. 4th edition. Elsevier; 2018.
  5. Wang PH, Huang BS, Horng HC, et al. Wound healing. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2018;81:94-101. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.11.002
  6. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1528-1542. doi:10.1177/147323000903700531
  7. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, et al. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453:314-321. doi:10.1038/nature07039
  8. Eming SA, Martin P, Tomic-Canic M. Wound repair and regeneration: mechanisms, signaling, and translation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:265sr6. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3009337
  9. Eming SA, Brachvogel B, Odorisio T, et al. Regulation of angiogenesis: wound healing as a model. Prog Histochem Cytochem. 2007;42:115-170. doi:10.1016/j.proghi.2007.06.001
  10. Janis JE, Harrison B. Wound healing: part I. basic science. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3 suppl):9S-17S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002773
  11. Profyris C, Tziotzios C, Do Vale I. Cutaneous scarring: pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms, and scar reduction therapeutics. part I: the molecular basis of scar formation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66:1-10; quiz 11-12. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.05.055
  12. Kwan P, Ding J, Tredget EE. MicroRNA 181b regulates decorin production by dermal fibroblasts and may be a potential therapy for hypertrophic scar. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123054
  13. Ben W, Yang Y, Yuan J, et al. Human papillomavirus 16 E6 modulates the expression of host microRNAs in cervical cancer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;54:364-370. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2014.06.007
  14. Yu EH, Tu HF, Wu CH, et al. MicroRNA-21 promotes perineural invasion and impacts survival in patients with oral carcinoma. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA. 2017;80:383-388. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.01.003
  15. Wen KC, Sung PL, Yen MS, et al. MicroRNAs regulate several functions of normal tissues and malignancies. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;52:465-469. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2013.10.002
  16. Babalola O, Mamalis A, Lev-Tov H, et al. The role of microRNAs in skin fibrosis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013;305:763-776. doi:10.1007/s00403-013-1410-1
  17. Hofer M, Hoferová Z, Falk M. Pharmacological modulation of radiation damage. does it exist a chance for other substances than hematopoietic growth factors and cytokines? Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:1385. doi:10.3390/ijms18071385
  18. Darby IA, Weller CD. Aspirin treatment for chronic wounds: potential beneficial and inhibitory effects. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25:7-12. doi:10.1111/wrr.12502
  19. Khalid KA, Nawi AFM, Zulkifli N, et al. Aging and wound healing of the skin: a review of clinical and pathophysiological hallmarks. Life. 2022;12:2142. doi:10.3390/life12122142
  20. Peacock HM, Gilbert EAB, Vickaryous MK. Scar‐free cutaneous wound healing in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius. J Anat. 2015;227:596-610. doi:10.1111/joa.12368
  21. Delorme SL, Lungu IM, Vickaryous MK. Scar‐free wound healing and regeneration following tail loss in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius. Anat Rec. 2012;295:1575-1595. doi:10.1002/ar.22490
  22. Brunauer R, Xia IG, Asrar SN, et al. Aging delays epimorphic regeneration in mice. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76:1726-1733. doi:10.1093/gerona/glab131
  23. Dolan CP, Yang TJ, Zimmel K, et al. Epimorphic regeneration of the mouse digit tip is finite. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13:62. doi:10.1186/s13287-022-02741-2
  24. Simkin J, Han M, Yu L, et al. The mouse digit tip: from wound healing to regeneration. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ. 2013;1037:419-435. doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-505-7_24
  25. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422-429. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005
  26. Dudek NL, Marks MB, Marshall SC, et al. Dermatologic conditions associated with use of a lower-extremity prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:659-663. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.09.003
  27. Lannan FM, Meyerle JH. The dermatologist’s role in amputee skin care. Cutis. 2019;103:86-90.
  28. Dougherty AL, Mohrle CR, Galarneau MR, et al. Battlefield extremity injuries in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Injury. 2009;40:772-777. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.02.014
  29. Epstein RA, Heinemann AW, McFarland LV. Quality of life for veterans and servicemembers with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:373-385. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.03.0023
  30. Pinzur MS, Gold J, Schwartz D, et al. Energy demands for walking in dysvascular amputees as related to the level of amputation. Orthopedics. 1992;15:1033-1036; discussion 1036-1037. doi:10.3928/0147-7447-19920901-07
  31. Robinson V, Sansam K, Hirst L, et al. Major lower limb amputation–what, why and how to achieve the best results. Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:276-285. doi:10.1016/j.mporth.2010.03.017
  32. Lu S, Wang C, Zhong W, et al. Amputation stump revision using a free sural neurocutaneous perforator flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:83-87. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000211
  33. Kim SW, Jeon SB, Hwang KT, et al. Coverage of amputation stumps using a latissimus dorsi flap with a serratus anterior muscle flap: a comparative study. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:88-93. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000220
  34. Pavey GJ, Formby PM, Hoyt BW, et al. Intrawound antibiotic powder decreases frequency of deep infection and severity of heterotopic ossification in combat lower extremity amputations. Clin Orthop. 2019;477:802-810. doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000090
  35. Dunkel N, Belaieff W, Assal M, et al. Wound dehiscence and stump infection after lower limb amputation: risk factors and association with antibiotic use. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2012;17:588-594. doi:10.1007/s00776-012-0245-5
  36. Rubin G, Orbach H, Rinott M, et al. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in treatment of fingertip amputation: a randomized prospective trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33:645-647. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.002
  37. Azarbal AF, Harris S, Mitchell EL, et al. Nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization is associated with increased wound occurrence after major lower extremity amputation. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:401-405. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2015.02.052
  38. Kwasniewski M, Mitchel D. Post amputation skin and wound care. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2022;33:857-870. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2022.06.010
  39. Chang H, Maldonado TS, Rockman CB, et al. Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy may decrease wound complications in major lower extremity amputations. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:1041-1047. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.061
  40. Kalliainen LK, Gordillo GM, Schlanger R, et al. Topical oxygen as an adjunct to wound healing: a clinical case series. Pathophysiol Off J Int Soc Pathophysiol. 2003;9:81-87. doi:10.1016/s0928-4680(02)00079-2
  41. Reichmann JP, Stevens PM, Rheinstein J, et al. Removable rigid dressings for postoperative management of transtibial amputations: a review of published evidence. PM R. 2018;10:516-523. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.10.002
  42. MacLean N, Fick GH. The effect of semirigid dressings on below-knee amputations. Phys Ther. 1994;74:668-673. doi:10.1093/ptj/74.7.668
  43. Koonalinthip N, Sukthongsa A, Janchai S. Comparison of removable rigid dressing and elastic bandage for residual limb maturation in transtibial amputees: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101:1683-1688. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.05.009
  44. Taylor L, Cavenett S, Stepien JM, et al. Removable rigid dressings: a retrospective case-note audit to determine the validity of post-amputation application. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:223-230. doi:10.1080/03093640802016795
  45. Sumpio B, Shine SR, Mahler D, et al. A comparison of immediate postoperative rigid and soft dressings for below-knee amputations. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:774-780. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2013.03.007
  46. van Velzen AD, Nederhand MJ, Emmelot CH, et al. Early treatment of trans-tibial amputees: retrospective analysis of early fitting and elastic bandaging. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:3-12. doi:10.1080/17461550500069588
  47. Chin T, Toda M. Results of prosthetic rehabilitation on managing transtibial vascular amputation with silicone liner after wound closure. J Int Med Res. 2016;44:957-967. doi:10.1177/0300060516647554
  48. Hoskins RD, Sutton EE, Kinor D, et al. Using vacuum-assisted suspension to manage residual limb wounds in persons with transtibial amputation: a case series. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38:68-74. doi:10.1177/0309364613487547
  49. Johannesson A, Larsson GU, Oberg T, et al. Comparison of vacuum-formed removable rigid dressing with conventional rigid dressing after transtibial amputation: similar outcome in a randomized controlled trial involving 27 patients. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:361-369. doi:10.1080/17453670710015265
  50. Alsancak S, Köse SK, Altınkaynak H. Effect of elastic bandaging and prosthesis on the decrease in stump volume. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2011;45:14-22. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2011.2365
  51. Than MP, Smith RA, Hammond C, et al. Keratin-based wound care products for treatment of resistant vascular wounds. J Clin Aesthetic Dermatol. 2012;5:31-35.
  52. Gurtner GC, Garcia AD, Bakewell K, et al. A retrospective matched‐cohort study of 3994 lower extremity wounds of multiple etiologies across 644 institutions comparing a bioactive human skin allograft, TheraSkin, plus standard of care, to standard of care alone. Int Wound J. 2020;17:55-64. doi:10.1111/iwj.13231
  53. Buikema KES, Meyerle JH. Amputation stump: privileged harbor for infections, tumors, and immune disorders. Clin Dermatol. 2014;32:670-677. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2014.04.015
  54. Yang NB, Garza LA, Foote CE, et al. High prevalence of stump dermatoses 38 years or more after amputation. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1283-1286. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2012.3004
  55. Potter BK, Burns TC, Lacap AP, et al. Heterotopic ossification following traumatic and combat-related amputations. Prevalence, risk factors, and preliminary results of excision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:476-486. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00412
  56. Edwards DS, Kuhn KM, Potter BK, et al. Heterotopic ossification: a review of current understanding, treatment, and future. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(suppl 3):S27-S30. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000666
  57. Tintle SM, Shawen SB, Forsberg JA, et al. Reoperation after combat-related major lower extremity amputations. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:232-237. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182a53130
  58. Bui KM, Raugi GJ, Nguyen VQ, et al. Skin problems in individuals with lower-limb loss: literature review and proposed classification system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:1085-1090. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.04.0052
  59. Turan H, Bas¸kan EB, Adim SB, et al. Acroangiodermatitis in a below-knee amputation stump. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2011;36:560-561. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2011.04037.x
  60. Lin CH, Ma H, Chung MT, et al. Granulomatous cutaneous lesions associated with risperidone-induced hyperprolactinemia in an amputated upper limb. Int J Dermatol. 2012;51:75-78. doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2011.04906.x
  61. Schwartz RA, Bagley MP, Janniger CK, et al. Verrucous carcinoma of a leg amputation stump. Dermatologica. 1991;182:193-195. doi:10.1159/000247782
  62. Campanati A, Diotallevi F, Radi G, et al. Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin B in focal hyperhidrosis: a narrative review. Toxins. 2023;15:147. doi:10.3390/toxins15020147
  63. Anderson RR, Donelan MB, Hivnor C, et al. Laser treatment of traumatic scars with an emphasis on ablative fractional laser resurfacing: consensus report. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:187-193. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.7761
  64. McGrath M, McCarthy J, Gallego A, et al. The influence of perforated prosthetic liners on residual limb wound healing: a case report. Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2019;2:32723. doi:10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.32723
  65. Abu El Hawa AA, Klein D, Bekeny JC, et al. The impact of statins on wound healing: an ally in treating the highly comorbid patient. J Wound Care. 2022;31(suppl 2):S36-S41. doi:10.12968/jowc.2022.31.Sup2.S36
  66. Nasseri S, Sharifi M. Therapeutic potential of antimicrobial peptides for wound healing. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2022;28:38. doi:10.1007/s10989-021-10350-5
  67. Lee JV, Engel C, Tay S, et al. N-Acetyl-Cysteine treatment after lower extremity amputation improves areas of perfusion defect and wound healing outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:39-40. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.12.025
  68. Dong Y, Yang Q, Sun X. Comprehensive analysis of cell therapy on chronic skin wound healing: a meta-analysis. Hum Gene Ther. 2021;32:787-795. doi:10.1089/hum.2020.275
Issue
Cutis - 113(3)
Issue
Cutis - 113(3)
Page Number
125-131
Page Number
125-131
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Wound Healing: Cellular Review With Specific Attention to Postamputation Care
Display Headline
Wound Healing: Cellular Review With Specific Attention to Postamputation Care
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Wound healing in adults is a complex dynamic process that usually takes the greater part of 1 year to completely resolve and is marked by the end of scar formation.
  • Postamputation residual limbs are subject to mechanical and biophysical stress to which the overlying skin is not accustomed. Skin treatment aims at mitigating these stresses.
  • The major dermatologic barriers to successful wound healing following amputation include infection, skin breakdown, formation of chronic wounds and granulation tissue, heterotopic ossification, and hyperhidrosis.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

What’s in a White Coat? The Changing Trends in Physician Attire and What it Means for Dermatology

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/19/2022 - 15:40
Display Headline
What’s in a White Coat? The Changing Trends in Physician Attire and What it Means for Dermatology

The White Coat Ceremony is an enduring memory from my medical school years. Amidst the tumult of memories of seemingly endless sleepless nights spent in libraries and cramming for clerkship examinations between surgical cases, I recall a sunny spring day in 2016 where I gathered with my classmates, family, and friends in the medical school campus courtyard. There were several short, mostly forgotten speeches after which proud fathers and mothers, partners, or siblings slipped the all-important white coat onto the shoulders of the physicians-to-be. At that moment, I felt the weight of tradition centuries in the making resting on my shoulders. Of course, the pomp of the ceremony might have felt a tad overblown had I known that the whole thing had fewer years under its belt than the movie Die Hard.

That’s right, the first White Coat Ceremony was held 5 years after the release of that Bruce Willis classic. Dr. Arnold Gold, a pediatric neurologist on faculty at Columbia University, conceived the ceremony in 1993, and it spread rapidly to medical schools—and later nursing schools—across the United States.1 Although the values highlighted by the White Coat Ceremony—humanism and compassion in medicine—are timeless, the ceremony itself is a more modern undertaking. What, then, of the white coat itself? Is it the timeless symbol of doctoring—of medicine—that we all presume it to be? Or is it a symbol of modern marketing, just a trend that caught on? And is it encountering its twilight—as trends often do—in the face of changing fashion and, more fundamentally, in changes to who our physicians are and to their roles in our society?

The Cleanliness of the White Coat

Until the end of the 19th century, physicians in the Western world most frequently dressed in black formal wear. The rationale behind this attire seems to have been twofold. First, society as a whole perceived the physician’s work as a serious and formal matter, and any medical encounter had to reflect the gravity of the occasion. Additionally, physicians’ visits often were a portent of impending demise, as physicians in the era prior to antibiotics and antisepsis frequently had little to offer their patients outside of—at best—anecdotal treatments and—at worst—sheer quackery.2 Black may have seemed a respectful choice for patients who likely faced dire outcomes regardless of the treatment afforded.3

With the turn of the century came a new understanding of the concepts of antisepsis and disease transmission. While Joseph Lister first published on the use of antisepsis in 1867, his practices did not become commonplace until the early 1900s.4 Around the same time came the Flexner report,5 the publication of William Osler’s Principles and Practice of Medicine,6 and the establishment of the modern medical residency, all of which contributed to the shift from the patient’s own bedside and to the hospital as the house of medicine, with cleanliness and antisepsis as part of its core principles.7 The white coat arose as a symbol of purity and freedom from disease. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, it has remained the predominant symbol of cleanliness and professionalism for the medical practitioner.

Patient Preference of Physician Attire

Although the white coat may serve as a professional symbol and is well respected medicine, it also plays an important role in the layperson’s perception of their health care providers.8 There is little denying that patients prefer their physicians, almost uniformly, to wear a white coat. A systematic review of physician attire that included 30 studies mainly from North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom found that patient preference for formal attire and white coats is near universal.9 Patients routinely rate physicians wearing a white coat as more intelligent and trustworthy and feel more confident in the care they will receive.10-13 They also freely admit that a physician’s appearance influences their satisfaction with their care.14 The recent adoption of the fleece, or softshell, jacket has not yet pervaded patients’ perceptions of what is considered appropriate physician attire. A 500-respondent survey found that patients were more likely to rate a model wearing a white coat as more professional and experienced compared to the same model wearing a fleece or softshell jacket or other formal attire sans white coat.15

Closer examination of the same data, however, reveals results reproduced with startling consistency across several studies, which suggest those of us adopting other attire need not dig those white coats out of the closet just yet. First, while many studies point to patient preference for white coats, this preference is uniformly strongest in older patients, beginning around age 40 years and becoming an entrenched preference in those older than 65 years.9,14,16-18 On the other hand, younger patient populations display little to no such preference, and some studies indicate that younger patients actually prefer scrubs over formal attire in specific settings such as surgical offices, procedural spaces, or the emergency department.12,14,19 This suggests that bias in favor of traditional physician garb may be more linked to age demographics and may continue to shift as the overall population ages. Additionally, although patients might profess a strong preference for physician attire in theory, it often does not translate into any impact on the patient’s perception of the physician following a clinic visit. The large systematic review on the topic noted that only 25% of studies that surveyed patients about a clinical visit following the encounter reported that physician attire influenced their satisfaction with that visit, suggesting that attire may be less likely to influence patients in the real-world context of receiving care.9 In fact, a prospective study of patient perception of medical staff and interactions found that staff style of dress not only had no bearing on the perception of staff or visit satisfaction but that patients often failed to even accurately recall physician attire when surveyed.20 Another survey study echoed these conclusions, finding that physician attire had no effect on the perception of a proposed treatment plan.21

What do we know about patient perception of physician attire in the dermatology setting specifically, where visits can be unique in their tendency to transition from medical to procedural in the span of a 15-minute encounter depending on the patient’s chief concern? A survey study of dermatology patients at the general, surgical, and wound care dermatology clinics of an academic medical center (Miami, Florida) found that professional attire with a white coat was strongly preferred across a litany of scenarios assessing many aspects of dermatologic care.21 Similarly, a study of patients visiting a single institution’s dermatology and pediatric dermatology clinics surveyed patients and parents regarding attire prior to an appointment and specifically asked if a white coat should be worn.13 Fifty-four percent of the adult patients (n=176) surveyed professed a preference for physicians in white coats, with a stronger preference for white coats reported by those 50 years and older (55%; n=113). Parents or guardians presenting to the pediatric dermatology clinic, on the other hand, favored less formal attire.13 A recent, real-world study performed at an outpatient dermatology clinic examined the influence of changing physician attire on a patient’s perceptions of care received during clinic encounters. They found no substantial difference in patient satisfaction scores before and following the adoption of a new clinic uniform that transitioned from formal attire to fitted scrubs.22

 

 

Racial and Gender Bias Affecting Attire Preference

With any study of preference, there is the underlying concern over respondent bias. Many of the studies discussed here have found secondarily that a patient’s implicit bias does not end at the clothes their physician is wearing. The survey study of dermatology patients from the academic medical center in Miami, Florida, found that patients preferred that Black physicians of either sex be garbed in professional attire at all times but generally were more accepting of White physicians in less formal attire.21 Adamson et al23 published a response to the study’s findings urging dermatologists to recognize that a physician’s race and gender influence patients’ perceptions in much the same way that physician attire seems to and encouraged the development of a more diverse dermatologic workforce to help combat this prejudice. The issue of bias is not limited to the specialty of dermatology; the recent survey study by Xun et al15 found that respondents consistently rated female models garbed in physician attire as less professional than male model counterparts. Additionally, female models wearing white coats were mistakenly identified as medical technicians, physician assistants, or nurses with substantially more frequency than males, despite being clothed in the traditional physician garb. Several other publications on the subject have uncovered implicit bias, though it is rarely, if ever, the principle focus of the study.10,24,25 As is unfortunately true in many professions, female physicians and physicians from ethnic minorities face barriers to being perceived as fully competent physicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finally, of course, there is the ever-present question of the effect of the pandemic. Although the exact role of the white coat as a fomite for infection—and especially for the spread of viral illness—remains controversial, the perception nonetheless has helped catalyze the movement to alternatives such as short-sleeved white coats, technical jackets, and more recently, fitted scrubs.26-29 As with much in this realm, facts seem less important than perceptions; Zahrina et al30 found that when patients were presented with information regarding the risk for microbial contamination associated with white coats, preference for physicians in professional garb plummeted from 72% to only 22%. To date no articles have examined patient perceptions of the white coat in the context of microbial transmission in the age of COVID-19, but future articles on this topic are likely and may serve to further the demise of the white coat.

Final Thoughts

From my vantage point, it seems the white coat will be claimed by the outgoing tide. During this most recent residency interview season, I do not recall a single medical student wearing a short white coat. The closest I came was a quick glimpse of a crumpled white jacket slung over an arm or stuffed in a shoulder bag. Rotating interns and residents from other services on rotation in our department present in softshell or fleece jackets. Fitted scrubs in the newest trendy colors speckle a previously all-white canvas. I, for one, have not donned my own white coat in at least a year, and perhaps it is all for the best. Physician attire is one small aspect of the practice of medicine and likely bears little, if any, relation to the wearer’s qualifications. Our focus should be on building rapport with our patients, providing high-quality care, reducing the risk for nosocomial infection, and developing a health care system that is fair and equitable for patients and health care workers alike, not on who is wearing what. Perhaps the introduction of new physician attire is a small part of the disruption we need to help address persistent gender and racial biases in our field and help shepherd our patients and colleagues to a worldview that is more open and accepting of physicians of diverse backgrounds.

References
  1. White Coat Ceremony. Gold Foundation website. Accessed December 26, 2021. https://www.gold-foundation.org/programs/white-coat-ceremony/
  2. Shryock RH. The Development of Modern Medicine. University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.
  3. Hochberg MS. The doctor’s white coat—an historical perspective. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9:310-314.
  4. Lister J. On the antiseptic principle in the practice of surgery. Lancet. 1867;90:353-356.
  5. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1910.
  6. Osler W. Principles and Practice of Medicine: Designed for the Use of Practitioners and Students of Medicine. D. Appleton & Company; 1892.
  7. Blumhagen DW. The doctor’s white coat: the image of the physician in modern America. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91:111-116.
  8. Verghese BG, Kashinath SK, Jadhav N, et al. Physician attire: physicians’ perspectives on attire in a community hospital setting among non-surgical specialties. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2020;10:1-5.
  9. Petrilli CM, Mack M, Petrilli JJ, et al. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature—targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. 2015;5:E006678.
  10. Rehman SU, Nietert PJ, Cope DW, et al. What to wear today? effect of doctor’s attire on the trust and confidence of patients. Am J Med. 2005;118:1279-1286.
  11. Jennings JD, Ciaravino SG, Ramsey FV, et al. Physicians’ attire influences patients’ perceptions in the urban outpatient orthopaedic surgery setting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:1908-1918.
  12. Gherardi G, Cameron J, West A, et al. Are we dressed to impress? a descriptive survey assessing patients preference of doctors’ attire in the hospital setting. Clin Med (Lond). 2009;9:519-524.
  13. Thomas MW, Burkhart CN, Lugo-Somolinos A, et al. Patients’ perceptions of physician attire in dermatology clinics. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147:505-506.
  14. Petrilli CM, Saint S, Jennings JJ, et al. Understanding patient preference for physician attire: a cross-sectional observational study of 10 academic medical centres in the USA. BMJ Open. 2018;8:E021239.
  15. Xun H, Chen J, Sun AH, et al. Public perceptions of physician attire and professionalism in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4:E2117779.
  16. Kamata K, Kuriyama A, Chopra V, et al. Patient preferences for physician attire: a multicenter study in Japan [published online February 11, 2020]. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:204-210.
  17. Budny AM, Rogers LC, Mandracchia VJ, et al. The physician’s attire and its influence on patient confidence. J Am Podiatr Assoc. 2006;96:132-138.
  18. Lill MM, Wilkinson TJ. Judging a book by its cover: descriptive survey of patients’ preferences for doctors’ appearance and mode of address. Br Med J. 2005;331:1524-1527.
  19. Hossler EW, Shipp D, Palmer M, et al. Impact of provider attire on patient satisfaction in an outpatient dermatology clinic. Cutis. 2018;102:127-129.
  20. Boon D, Wardrope J. What should doctors wear in the accident and emergency department? patients’ perception. J Accid Emerg Med. 1994;11:175-177.
  21. Fox JD, Prado G, Baquerizo Nole KL, et al. Patient preference in dermatologist attire in the medical, surgical, and wound care settings. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:913-919.
  22. Bray JK, Porter C, Feldman SR. The effect of physician appearance on patient perceptions of treatment plans. Dermatol Online J. 2021;27. doi:10.5070/D327553611
  23. Adamson AS, Wright SW, Pandya AG. A missed opportunity to discuss racial and gender bias in dermatology. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:110-111.
  24. Hartmans C, Heremans S, Lagrain M, et al. The doctor’s new clothes: professional or fashionable? Primary Health Care. 2013;3:135.
  25. Kurihara H, Maeno T, Maeno T. Importance of physicians’ attire: factors influencing the impression it makes on patients, a cross-sectional study. Asia Pac Fam Med. 2014;13:2.
  26. Treakle AM, Thom KA, Furuno JP, et al. Bacterial contamination of health care workers’ white coats. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:101-105.
  27. Banu A, Anand M, Nagi N, et al. White coats as a vehicle for bacterial dissemination. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1381-1384.
  28. Haun N, Hooper-Lane C, Safdar N. Healthcare personnel attire and devices as fomites: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:1367-1373.
  29. Tse G, Withey S, Yeo JM, et al. Bare below the elbows: was the target the white coat? J Hosp Infect. 2015;91:299-301.
  30. Zahrina AZ, Haymond P, Rosanna P, et al. Does the attire of a primary care physician affect patients’ perceptions and their levels of trust in the doctor? Malays Fam Physician. 2018;13:3-11.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Issue
Cutis - 109(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E20-E23
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

The White Coat Ceremony is an enduring memory from my medical school years. Amidst the tumult of memories of seemingly endless sleepless nights spent in libraries and cramming for clerkship examinations between surgical cases, I recall a sunny spring day in 2016 where I gathered with my classmates, family, and friends in the medical school campus courtyard. There were several short, mostly forgotten speeches after which proud fathers and mothers, partners, or siblings slipped the all-important white coat onto the shoulders of the physicians-to-be. At that moment, I felt the weight of tradition centuries in the making resting on my shoulders. Of course, the pomp of the ceremony might have felt a tad overblown had I known that the whole thing had fewer years under its belt than the movie Die Hard.

That’s right, the first White Coat Ceremony was held 5 years after the release of that Bruce Willis classic. Dr. Arnold Gold, a pediatric neurologist on faculty at Columbia University, conceived the ceremony in 1993, and it spread rapidly to medical schools—and later nursing schools—across the United States.1 Although the values highlighted by the White Coat Ceremony—humanism and compassion in medicine—are timeless, the ceremony itself is a more modern undertaking. What, then, of the white coat itself? Is it the timeless symbol of doctoring—of medicine—that we all presume it to be? Or is it a symbol of modern marketing, just a trend that caught on? And is it encountering its twilight—as trends often do—in the face of changing fashion and, more fundamentally, in changes to who our physicians are and to their roles in our society?

The Cleanliness of the White Coat

Until the end of the 19th century, physicians in the Western world most frequently dressed in black formal wear. The rationale behind this attire seems to have been twofold. First, society as a whole perceived the physician’s work as a serious and formal matter, and any medical encounter had to reflect the gravity of the occasion. Additionally, physicians’ visits often were a portent of impending demise, as physicians in the era prior to antibiotics and antisepsis frequently had little to offer their patients outside of—at best—anecdotal treatments and—at worst—sheer quackery.2 Black may have seemed a respectful choice for patients who likely faced dire outcomes regardless of the treatment afforded.3

With the turn of the century came a new understanding of the concepts of antisepsis and disease transmission. While Joseph Lister first published on the use of antisepsis in 1867, his practices did not become commonplace until the early 1900s.4 Around the same time came the Flexner report,5 the publication of William Osler’s Principles and Practice of Medicine,6 and the establishment of the modern medical residency, all of which contributed to the shift from the patient’s own bedside and to the hospital as the house of medicine, with cleanliness and antisepsis as part of its core principles.7 The white coat arose as a symbol of purity and freedom from disease. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, it has remained the predominant symbol of cleanliness and professionalism for the medical practitioner.

Patient Preference of Physician Attire

Although the white coat may serve as a professional symbol and is well respected medicine, it also plays an important role in the layperson’s perception of their health care providers.8 There is little denying that patients prefer their physicians, almost uniformly, to wear a white coat. A systematic review of physician attire that included 30 studies mainly from North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom found that patient preference for formal attire and white coats is near universal.9 Patients routinely rate physicians wearing a white coat as more intelligent and trustworthy and feel more confident in the care they will receive.10-13 They also freely admit that a physician’s appearance influences their satisfaction with their care.14 The recent adoption of the fleece, or softshell, jacket has not yet pervaded patients’ perceptions of what is considered appropriate physician attire. A 500-respondent survey found that patients were more likely to rate a model wearing a white coat as more professional and experienced compared to the same model wearing a fleece or softshell jacket or other formal attire sans white coat.15

Closer examination of the same data, however, reveals results reproduced with startling consistency across several studies, which suggest those of us adopting other attire need not dig those white coats out of the closet just yet. First, while many studies point to patient preference for white coats, this preference is uniformly strongest in older patients, beginning around age 40 years and becoming an entrenched preference in those older than 65 years.9,14,16-18 On the other hand, younger patient populations display little to no such preference, and some studies indicate that younger patients actually prefer scrubs over formal attire in specific settings such as surgical offices, procedural spaces, or the emergency department.12,14,19 This suggests that bias in favor of traditional physician garb may be more linked to age demographics and may continue to shift as the overall population ages. Additionally, although patients might profess a strong preference for physician attire in theory, it often does not translate into any impact on the patient’s perception of the physician following a clinic visit. The large systematic review on the topic noted that only 25% of studies that surveyed patients about a clinical visit following the encounter reported that physician attire influenced their satisfaction with that visit, suggesting that attire may be less likely to influence patients in the real-world context of receiving care.9 In fact, a prospective study of patient perception of medical staff and interactions found that staff style of dress not only had no bearing on the perception of staff or visit satisfaction but that patients often failed to even accurately recall physician attire when surveyed.20 Another survey study echoed these conclusions, finding that physician attire had no effect on the perception of a proposed treatment plan.21

What do we know about patient perception of physician attire in the dermatology setting specifically, where visits can be unique in their tendency to transition from medical to procedural in the span of a 15-minute encounter depending on the patient’s chief concern? A survey study of dermatology patients at the general, surgical, and wound care dermatology clinics of an academic medical center (Miami, Florida) found that professional attire with a white coat was strongly preferred across a litany of scenarios assessing many aspects of dermatologic care.21 Similarly, a study of patients visiting a single institution’s dermatology and pediatric dermatology clinics surveyed patients and parents regarding attire prior to an appointment and specifically asked if a white coat should be worn.13 Fifty-four percent of the adult patients (n=176) surveyed professed a preference for physicians in white coats, with a stronger preference for white coats reported by those 50 years and older (55%; n=113). Parents or guardians presenting to the pediatric dermatology clinic, on the other hand, favored less formal attire.13 A recent, real-world study performed at an outpatient dermatology clinic examined the influence of changing physician attire on a patient’s perceptions of care received during clinic encounters. They found no substantial difference in patient satisfaction scores before and following the adoption of a new clinic uniform that transitioned from formal attire to fitted scrubs.22

 

 

Racial and Gender Bias Affecting Attire Preference

With any study of preference, there is the underlying concern over respondent bias. Many of the studies discussed here have found secondarily that a patient’s implicit bias does not end at the clothes their physician is wearing. The survey study of dermatology patients from the academic medical center in Miami, Florida, found that patients preferred that Black physicians of either sex be garbed in professional attire at all times but generally were more accepting of White physicians in less formal attire.21 Adamson et al23 published a response to the study’s findings urging dermatologists to recognize that a physician’s race and gender influence patients’ perceptions in much the same way that physician attire seems to and encouraged the development of a more diverse dermatologic workforce to help combat this prejudice. The issue of bias is not limited to the specialty of dermatology; the recent survey study by Xun et al15 found that respondents consistently rated female models garbed in physician attire as less professional than male model counterparts. Additionally, female models wearing white coats were mistakenly identified as medical technicians, physician assistants, or nurses with substantially more frequency than males, despite being clothed in the traditional physician garb. Several other publications on the subject have uncovered implicit bias, though it is rarely, if ever, the principle focus of the study.10,24,25 As is unfortunately true in many professions, female physicians and physicians from ethnic minorities face barriers to being perceived as fully competent physicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finally, of course, there is the ever-present question of the effect of the pandemic. Although the exact role of the white coat as a fomite for infection—and especially for the spread of viral illness—remains controversial, the perception nonetheless has helped catalyze the movement to alternatives such as short-sleeved white coats, technical jackets, and more recently, fitted scrubs.26-29 As with much in this realm, facts seem less important than perceptions; Zahrina et al30 found that when patients were presented with information regarding the risk for microbial contamination associated with white coats, preference for physicians in professional garb plummeted from 72% to only 22%. To date no articles have examined patient perceptions of the white coat in the context of microbial transmission in the age of COVID-19, but future articles on this topic are likely and may serve to further the demise of the white coat.

Final Thoughts

From my vantage point, it seems the white coat will be claimed by the outgoing tide. During this most recent residency interview season, I do not recall a single medical student wearing a short white coat. The closest I came was a quick glimpse of a crumpled white jacket slung over an arm or stuffed in a shoulder bag. Rotating interns and residents from other services on rotation in our department present in softshell or fleece jackets. Fitted scrubs in the newest trendy colors speckle a previously all-white canvas. I, for one, have not donned my own white coat in at least a year, and perhaps it is all for the best. Physician attire is one small aspect of the practice of medicine and likely bears little, if any, relation to the wearer’s qualifications. Our focus should be on building rapport with our patients, providing high-quality care, reducing the risk for nosocomial infection, and developing a health care system that is fair and equitable for patients and health care workers alike, not on who is wearing what. Perhaps the introduction of new physician attire is a small part of the disruption we need to help address persistent gender and racial biases in our field and help shepherd our patients and colleagues to a worldview that is more open and accepting of physicians of diverse backgrounds.

The White Coat Ceremony is an enduring memory from my medical school years. Amidst the tumult of memories of seemingly endless sleepless nights spent in libraries and cramming for clerkship examinations between surgical cases, I recall a sunny spring day in 2016 where I gathered with my classmates, family, and friends in the medical school campus courtyard. There were several short, mostly forgotten speeches after which proud fathers and mothers, partners, or siblings slipped the all-important white coat onto the shoulders of the physicians-to-be. At that moment, I felt the weight of tradition centuries in the making resting on my shoulders. Of course, the pomp of the ceremony might have felt a tad overblown had I known that the whole thing had fewer years under its belt than the movie Die Hard.

That’s right, the first White Coat Ceremony was held 5 years after the release of that Bruce Willis classic. Dr. Arnold Gold, a pediatric neurologist on faculty at Columbia University, conceived the ceremony in 1993, and it spread rapidly to medical schools—and later nursing schools—across the United States.1 Although the values highlighted by the White Coat Ceremony—humanism and compassion in medicine—are timeless, the ceremony itself is a more modern undertaking. What, then, of the white coat itself? Is it the timeless symbol of doctoring—of medicine—that we all presume it to be? Or is it a symbol of modern marketing, just a trend that caught on? And is it encountering its twilight—as trends often do—in the face of changing fashion and, more fundamentally, in changes to who our physicians are and to their roles in our society?

The Cleanliness of the White Coat

Until the end of the 19th century, physicians in the Western world most frequently dressed in black formal wear. The rationale behind this attire seems to have been twofold. First, society as a whole perceived the physician’s work as a serious and formal matter, and any medical encounter had to reflect the gravity of the occasion. Additionally, physicians’ visits often were a portent of impending demise, as physicians in the era prior to antibiotics and antisepsis frequently had little to offer their patients outside of—at best—anecdotal treatments and—at worst—sheer quackery.2 Black may have seemed a respectful choice for patients who likely faced dire outcomes regardless of the treatment afforded.3

With the turn of the century came a new understanding of the concepts of antisepsis and disease transmission. While Joseph Lister first published on the use of antisepsis in 1867, his practices did not become commonplace until the early 1900s.4 Around the same time came the Flexner report,5 the publication of William Osler’s Principles and Practice of Medicine,6 and the establishment of the modern medical residency, all of which contributed to the shift from the patient’s own bedside and to the hospital as the house of medicine, with cleanliness and antisepsis as part of its core principles.7 The white coat arose as a symbol of purity and freedom from disease. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, it has remained the predominant symbol of cleanliness and professionalism for the medical practitioner.

Patient Preference of Physician Attire

Although the white coat may serve as a professional symbol and is well respected medicine, it also plays an important role in the layperson’s perception of their health care providers.8 There is little denying that patients prefer their physicians, almost uniformly, to wear a white coat. A systematic review of physician attire that included 30 studies mainly from North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom found that patient preference for formal attire and white coats is near universal.9 Patients routinely rate physicians wearing a white coat as more intelligent and trustworthy and feel more confident in the care they will receive.10-13 They also freely admit that a physician’s appearance influences their satisfaction with their care.14 The recent adoption of the fleece, or softshell, jacket has not yet pervaded patients’ perceptions of what is considered appropriate physician attire. A 500-respondent survey found that patients were more likely to rate a model wearing a white coat as more professional and experienced compared to the same model wearing a fleece or softshell jacket or other formal attire sans white coat.15

Closer examination of the same data, however, reveals results reproduced with startling consistency across several studies, which suggest those of us adopting other attire need not dig those white coats out of the closet just yet. First, while many studies point to patient preference for white coats, this preference is uniformly strongest in older patients, beginning around age 40 years and becoming an entrenched preference in those older than 65 years.9,14,16-18 On the other hand, younger patient populations display little to no such preference, and some studies indicate that younger patients actually prefer scrubs over formal attire in specific settings such as surgical offices, procedural spaces, or the emergency department.12,14,19 This suggests that bias in favor of traditional physician garb may be more linked to age demographics and may continue to shift as the overall population ages. Additionally, although patients might profess a strong preference for physician attire in theory, it often does not translate into any impact on the patient’s perception of the physician following a clinic visit. The large systematic review on the topic noted that only 25% of studies that surveyed patients about a clinical visit following the encounter reported that physician attire influenced their satisfaction with that visit, suggesting that attire may be less likely to influence patients in the real-world context of receiving care.9 In fact, a prospective study of patient perception of medical staff and interactions found that staff style of dress not only had no bearing on the perception of staff or visit satisfaction but that patients often failed to even accurately recall physician attire when surveyed.20 Another survey study echoed these conclusions, finding that physician attire had no effect on the perception of a proposed treatment plan.21

What do we know about patient perception of physician attire in the dermatology setting specifically, where visits can be unique in their tendency to transition from medical to procedural in the span of a 15-minute encounter depending on the patient’s chief concern? A survey study of dermatology patients at the general, surgical, and wound care dermatology clinics of an academic medical center (Miami, Florida) found that professional attire with a white coat was strongly preferred across a litany of scenarios assessing many aspects of dermatologic care.21 Similarly, a study of patients visiting a single institution’s dermatology and pediatric dermatology clinics surveyed patients and parents regarding attire prior to an appointment and specifically asked if a white coat should be worn.13 Fifty-four percent of the adult patients (n=176) surveyed professed a preference for physicians in white coats, with a stronger preference for white coats reported by those 50 years and older (55%; n=113). Parents or guardians presenting to the pediatric dermatology clinic, on the other hand, favored less formal attire.13 A recent, real-world study performed at an outpatient dermatology clinic examined the influence of changing physician attire on a patient’s perceptions of care received during clinic encounters. They found no substantial difference in patient satisfaction scores before and following the adoption of a new clinic uniform that transitioned from formal attire to fitted scrubs.22

 

 

Racial and Gender Bias Affecting Attire Preference

With any study of preference, there is the underlying concern over respondent bias. Many of the studies discussed here have found secondarily that a patient’s implicit bias does not end at the clothes their physician is wearing. The survey study of dermatology patients from the academic medical center in Miami, Florida, found that patients preferred that Black physicians of either sex be garbed in professional attire at all times but generally were more accepting of White physicians in less formal attire.21 Adamson et al23 published a response to the study’s findings urging dermatologists to recognize that a physician’s race and gender influence patients’ perceptions in much the same way that physician attire seems to and encouraged the development of a more diverse dermatologic workforce to help combat this prejudice. The issue of bias is not limited to the specialty of dermatology; the recent survey study by Xun et al15 found that respondents consistently rated female models garbed in physician attire as less professional than male model counterparts. Additionally, female models wearing white coats were mistakenly identified as medical technicians, physician assistants, or nurses with substantially more frequency than males, despite being clothed in the traditional physician garb. Several other publications on the subject have uncovered implicit bias, though it is rarely, if ever, the principle focus of the study.10,24,25 As is unfortunately true in many professions, female physicians and physicians from ethnic minorities face barriers to being perceived as fully competent physicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finally, of course, there is the ever-present question of the effect of the pandemic. Although the exact role of the white coat as a fomite for infection—and especially for the spread of viral illness—remains controversial, the perception nonetheless has helped catalyze the movement to alternatives such as short-sleeved white coats, technical jackets, and more recently, fitted scrubs.26-29 As with much in this realm, facts seem less important than perceptions; Zahrina et al30 found that when patients were presented with information regarding the risk for microbial contamination associated with white coats, preference for physicians in professional garb plummeted from 72% to only 22%. To date no articles have examined patient perceptions of the white coat in the context of microbial transmission in the age of COVID-19, but future articles on this topic are likely and may serve to further the demise of the white coat.

Final Thoughts

From my vantage point, it seems the white coat will be claimed by the outgoing tide. During this most recent residency interview season, I do not recall a single medical student wearing a short white coat. The closest I came was a quick glimpse of a crumpled white jacket slung over an arm or stuffed in a shoulder bag. Rotating interns and residents from other services on rotation in our department present in softshell or fleece jackets. Fitted scrubs in the newest trendy colors speckle a previously all-white canvas. I, for one, have not donned my own white coat in at least a year, and perhaps it is all for the best. Physician attire is one small aspect of the practice of medicine and likely bears little, if any, relation to the wearer’s qualifications. Our focus should be on building rapport with our patients, providing high-quality care, reducing the risk for nosocomial infection, and developing a health care system that is fair and equitable for patients and health care workers alike, not on who is wearing what. Perhaps the introduction of new physician attire is a small part of the disruption we need to help address persistent gender and racial biases in our field and help shepherd our patients and colleagues to a worldview that is more open and accepting of physicians of diverse backgrounds.

References
  1. White Coat Ceremony. Gold Foundation website. Accessed December 26, 2021. https://www.gold-foundation.org/programs/white-coat-ceremony/
  2. Shryock RH. The Development of Modern Medicine. University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.
  3. Hochberg MS. The doctor’s white coat—an historical perspective. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9:310-314.
  4. Lister J. On the antiseptic principle in the practice of surgery. Lancet. 1867;90:353-356.
  5. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1910.
  6. Osler W. Principles and Practice of Medicine: Designed for the Use of Practitioners and Students of Medicine. D. Appleton & Company; 1892.
  7. Blumhagen DW. The doctor’s white coat: the image of the physician in modern America. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91:111-116.
  8. Verghese BG, Kashinath SK, Jadhav N, et al. Physician attire: physicians’ perspectives on attire in a community hospital setting among non-surgical specialties. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2020;10:1-5.
  9. Petrilli CM, Mack M, Petrilli JJ, et al. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature—targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. 2015;5:E006678.
  10. Rehman SU, Nietert PJ, Cope DW, et al. What to wear today? effect of doctor’s attire on the trust and confidence of patients. Am J Med. 2005;118:1279-1286.
  11. Jennings JD, Ciaravino SG, Ramsey FV, et al. Physicians’ attire influences patients’ perceptions in the urban outpatient orthopaedic surgery setting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:1908-1918.
  12. Gherardi G, Cameron J, West A, et al. Are we dressed to impress? a descriptive survey assessing patients preference of doctors’ attire in the hospital setting. Clin Med (Lond). 2009;9:519-524.
  13. Thomas MW, Burkhart CN, Lugo-Somolinos A, et al. Patients’ perceptions of physician attire in dermatology clinics. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147:505-506.
  14. Petrilli CM, Saint S, Jennings JJ, et al. Understanding patient preference for physician attire: a cross-sectional observational study of 10 academic medical centres in the USA. BMJ Open. 2018;8:E021239.
  15. Xun H, Chen J, Sun AH, et al. Public perceptions of physician attire and professionalism in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4:E2117779.
  16. Kamata K, Kuriyama A, Chopra V, et al. Patient preferences for physician attire: a multicenter study in Japan [published online February 11, 2020]. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:204-210.
  17. Budny AM, Rogers LC, Mandracchia VJ, et al. The physician’s attire and its influence on patient confidence. J Am Podiatr Assoc. 2006;96:132-138.
  18. Lill MM, Wilkinson TJ. Judging a book by its cover: descriptive survey of patients’ preferences for doctors’ appearance and mode of address. Br Med J. 2005;331:1524-1527.
  19. Hossler EW, Shipp D, Palmer M, et al. Impact of provider attire on patient satisfaction in an outpatient dermatology clinic. Cutis. 2018;102:127-129.
  20. Boon D, Wardrope J. What should doctors wear in the accident and emergency department? patients’ perception. J Accid Emerg Med. 1994;11:175-177.
  21. Fox JD, Prado G, Baquerizo Nole KL, et al. Patient preference in dermatologist attire in the medical, surgical, and wound care settings. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:913-919.
  22. Bray JK, Porter C, Feldman SR. The effect of physician appearance on patient perceptions of treatment plans. Dermatol Online J. 2021;27. doi:10.5070/D327553611
  23. Adamson AS, Wright SW, Pandya AG. A missed opportunity to discuss racial and gender bias in dermatology. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:110-111.
  24. Hartmans C, Heremans S, Lagrain M, et al. The doctor’s new clothes: professional or fashionable? Primary Health Care. 2013;3:135.
  25. Kurihara H, Maeno T, Maeno T. Importance of physicians’ attire: factors influencing the impression it makes on patients, a cross-sectional study. Asia Pac Fam Med. 2014;13:2.
  26. Treakle AM, Thom KA, Furuno JP, et al. Bacterial contamination of health care workers’ white coats. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:101-105.
  27. Banu A, Anand M, Nagi N, et al. White coats as a vehicle for bacterial dissemination. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1381-1384.
  28. Haun N, Hooper-Lane C, Safdar N. Healthcare personnel attire and devices as fomites: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:1367-1373.
  29. Tse G, Withey S, Yeo JM, et al. Bare below the elbows: was the target the white coat? J Hosp Infect. 2015;91:299-301.
  30. Zahrina AZ, Haymond P, Rosanna P, et al. Does the attire of a primary care physician affect patients’ perceptions and their levels of trust in the doctor? Malays Fam Physician. 2018;13:3-11.
References
  1. White Coat Ceremony. Gold Foundation website. Accessed December 26, 2021. https://www.gold-foundation.org/programs/white-coat-ceremony/
  2. Shryock RH. The Development of Modern Medicine. University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.
  3. Hochberg MS. The doctor’s white coat—an historical perspective. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9:310-314.
  4. Lister J. On the antiseptic principle in the practice of surgery. Lancet. 1867;90:353-356.
  5. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1910.
  6. Osler W. Principles and Practice of Medicine: Designed for the Use of Practitioners and Students of Medicine. D. Appleton & Company; 1892.
  7. Blumhagen DW. The doctor’s white coat: the image of the physician in modern America. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91:111-116.
  8. Verghese BG, Kashinath SK, Jadhav N, et al. Physician attire: physicians’ perspectives on attire in a community hospital setting among non-surgical specialties. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2020;10:1-5.
  9. Petrilli CM, Mack M, Petrilli JJ, et al. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature—targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. 2015;5:E006678.
  10. Rehman SU, Nietert PJ, Cope DW, et al. What to wear today? effect of doctor’s attire on the trust and confidence of patients. Am J Med. 2005;118:1279-1286.
  11. Jennings JD, Ciaravino SG, Ramsey FV, et al. Physicians’ attire influences patients’ perceptions in the urban outpatient orthopaedic surgery setting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:1908-1918.
  12. Gherardi G, Cameron J, West A, et al. Are we dressed to impress? a descriptive survey assessing patients preference of doctors’ attire in the hospital setting. Clin Med (Lond). 2009;9:519-524.
  13. Thomas MW, Burkhart CN, Lugo-Somolinos A, et al. Patients’ perceptions of physician attire in dermatology clinics. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147:505-506.
  14. Petrilli CM, Saint S, Jennings JJ, et al. Understanding patient preference for physician attire: a cross-sectional observational study of 10 academic medical centres in the USA. BMJ Open. 2018;8:E021239.
  15. Xun H, Chen J, Sun AH, et al. Public perceptions of physician attire and professionalism in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4:E2117779.
  16. Kamata K, Kuriyama A, Chopra V, et al. Patient preferences for physician attire: a multicenter study in Japan [published online February 11, 2020]. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:204-210.
  17. Budny AM, Rogers LC, Mandracchia VJ, et al. The physician’s attire and its influence on patient confidence. J Am Podiatr Assoc. 2006;96:132-138.
  18. Lill MM, Wilkinson TJ. Judging a book by its cover: descriptive survey of patients’ preferences for doctors’ appearance and mode of address. Br Med J. 2005;331:1524-1527.
  19. Hossler EW, Shipp D, Palmer M, et al. Impact of provider attire on patient satisfaction in an outpatient dermatology clinic. Cutis. 2018;102:127-129.
  20. Boon D, Wardrope J. What should doctors wear in the accident and emergency department? patients’ perception. J Accid Emerg Med. 1994;11:175-177.
  21. Fox JD, Prado G, Baquerizo Nole KL, et al. Patient preference in dermatologist attire in the medical, surgical, and wound care settings. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:913-919.
  22. Bray JK, Porter C, Feldman SR. The effect of physician appearance on patient perceptions of treatment plans. Dermatol Online J. 2021;27. doi:10.5070/D327553611
  23. Adamson AS, Wright SW, Pandya AG. A missed opportunity to discuss racial and gender bias in dermatology. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:110-111.
  24. Hartmans C, Heremans S, Lagrain M, et al. The doctor’s new clothes: professional or fashionable? Primary Health Care. 2013;3:135.
  25. Kurihara H, Maeno T, Maeno T. Importance of physicians’ attire: factors influencing the impression it makes on patients, a cross-sectional study. Asia Pac Fam Med. 2014;13:2.
  26. Treakle AM, Thom KA, Furuno JP, et al. Bacterial contamination of health care workers’ white coats. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:101-105.
  27. Banu A, Anand M, Nagi N, et al. White coats as a vehicle for bacterial dissemination. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1381-1384.
  28. Haun N, Hooper-Lane C, Safdar N. Healthcare personnel attire and devices as fomites: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37:1367-1373.
  29. Tse G, Withey S, Yeo JM, et al. Bare below the elbows: was the target the white coat? J Hosp Infect. 2015;91:299-301.
  30. Zahrina AZ, Haymond P, Rosanna P, et al. Does the attire of a primary care physician affect patients’ perceptions and their levels of trust in the doctor? Malays Fam Physician. 2018;13:3-11.
Issue
Cutis - 109(1)
Issue
Cutis - 109(1)
Page Number
E20-E23
Page Number
E20-E23
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
What’s in a White Coat? The Changing Trends in Physician Attire and What it Means for Dermatology
Display Headline
What’s in a White Coat? The Changing Trends in Physician Attire and What it Means for Dermatology
Sections
Inside the Article

Resident Pearls

  • Until the end of the 19th century, Western physicians most commonly wore black formal wear. The rise of the physician’s white coat occurred in conjunction with the shift to hospital medicine.
  • Patient surveys repeatedly have demonstrated a preference for physicians to wear white coats; whether or not this has any bearing on patient satisfaction in real-world scenarios is less clear.
  • The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trends in white coat wear has not yet been elucidated.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Volunteer Opportunities Within Dermatology: More than Skin Deep

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/01/2021 - 13:58

The adage “so much to do, so little time” aptly describes the daily challenges facing dermatologists and dermatology residents. The time and attention required by direct patient care, writing notes, navigating electronic health records, and engaging in education and research as well as family commitments can drain even the most tireless clinician. In addition, dermatologists are expected to play a critical role in clinic and practice management to successfully curate an online presence and adapt their skills to successfully manage a teledermatology practice. Coupled with the time spent socializing with friends or colleagues and time for personal hobbies or exercise, it’s easy to see how sleep deprivation is common in many of our colleagues.

What’s being left out of these jam-packed schedules? Increasingly, it is the time and expertise dedicated to volunteering in our local communities. Two recent research letters highlighted how a dramatic increase in the number of research projects and publications is not mirrored by a similar increase in volunteer experiences as dermatology residency selection becomes more competitive.1,2

Although the rate of volunteerism among practicing dermatologists has yet to be studied, a brief review suggests a component of unmet dermatology need within our communities. It’s estimated that approximately 5% to 10% of all emergency department visits are for dermatologic concerns.3-5 In many cases, the reason for the visit is nonurgent and instead reflects a lack of other options for care. However, the need for dermatologists extends beyond the emergency department setting. A review of the prevalence of patients presenting for care to a group of regional free clinics found that 8% (N=5553) of all visitors sought care for dermatologic concerns.6 The benefit is not just for those seated on the examination table; research has shown that while many of the underlying factors resulting in physician burnout stem from systemic issues, participating in volunteer opportunities helps combat burnout in ourselves and our colleagues.7-9 Herein, opportunities that exist for dermatologists to reconnect with their communities, advocate for causes distinctive to the specialty, and care for neighbors most in need are highlighted.

Camp Wonder

Every year, children from across the United States living with chronic and debilitating skin conditions get the opportunity to join fellow campers and spend a week just being kids without the constant focus on being a patient. Camp Wonder’s founder and director, Francesca Tenconi, describes the camp as a place where kids “can form a community and can feel free to be themselves, without judgment, without stares. They get the chance to forget about their skin disease and be themselves” (oral communication, June 18, 2021). Tenconi and the camp’s cofounders and medical directors, Drs. Jenny Kim and Stefani Takahashi, envisioned the camp as a place for all campers regardless of their skin condition to feel safe and welcome. This overall mission guides camp leadership and staff every year over the course of the camp week where campers participate in a mix of traditional and nontraditional summer activities that are safe and accessible for all, from spending time in the pool to arts and crafts and a ropes course.

Camp Wonder is in its 21st year of hosting children and adolescents from across North America at its camp in Livermore, California. This year, Tenconi expects about 100 campers during the last week in July. Camp Wonder relies on medical staff volunteers to make the camp setting safe, inclusive, and fun. “Our dermatology residents and dermatology volunteers are a huge part of why we’re able to have camp,” said Tenconi. “A lot of our kids require very specific medical care throughout the week. We are able to provide this camp experience for them because we have this medical support system available, this specialized dermatology knowledge.” She also noted the benefit to the volunteers themselves, saying,“The feedback we get a lot from residents and dermatologists is that camp gave them a chance to understand the true-life impact of some of the skin diseases these kids and families are living with. Kids will open up to them and tell them how their disease has impacted them personally” (oral communication, June 18, 2021).



Volunteer medical providers help manage the medical needs of the campers beginning at check-in and work shifts in the infirmary as well as help with dispensing and administering medications, changing dressings, and applying ointments or other topical medications. When not assisting with medical care, medical staff can get to know the campers; help out with arts and crafts, games, sports, and other camp activities; and put on skits and plays for campers at nightly camp hangouts (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A and B, Camp Wonder volunteer medical staff in costume rehearsing for a nightly skit and breaking their own rules about soap overuse. Photographs courtesy of John Peters, MD (Portsmouth, Virginia).


How to Get Involved
Visit the website (https://www.csdf.org/camp-wonder) for information on becoming a medical volunteer for 2022. Donations to help keep the camp running also are greatly appreciated, as attendance, including travel costs, is free for families through the Children’s Skin Disease Foundation. Finally, dermatologists can help by keeping their young patients with skin disease in mind as future campers. The camp welcomes kids from across the United States and Canada and invites questions from dermatologists and families on how to become a camper and what the experience is like.

 

 

Native American Health Services Rotation

Located in the southwestern United States, the Navajo Nation is North America’s largest Native American tribe by enrollment and resides on the largest reservation in the United States.10 Comprised of 27,000 square miles within portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, the reservation’s total area is greater than that of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined.11 The reservation is home to an estimated 180,000 Navajo people, a population roughly the size of Salt Lake City, Utah. Yet, many homes on the reservation are without electricity, running water, telephones, or broadband access, and many roads on the reservation remain unpaved. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 4 dermatology residents were selected each year to travel to this unique and remote location to work with the staff of the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility (Chinle, Arizona), an Indian Health Service facility, as part of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–sponsored Native American Health Services Resident Rotation (NAHSRR).

Dr. Lucinda Kohn, Assistant Professor of Dermatology at the University of Colorado and the director of the NAHSRR program discovered the value of this rotation firsthand as a dermatology resident. In 2017, she traveled to the area to spend 2 weeks serving within the community. “I went because of a personal connection. My husband is Native American, although not Navajo. I wanted to experience what it was like to provide dermatologic care for Native Americans. I found the Navajo people to be so friendly and so grateful for our care. The clinicians we worked with at Chinle were excited to have us share our expertise and to pass on their knowledge to us,” said Dr. Kohn (personal communication, June 24, 2021).

Rotating residents provide dermatologic care for the Navajo people and share their unique medical skill set to local primary care clinicians serving as preceptors. They also may have an opportunity to learn from Native healers about traditional Navajo beliefs and ceremonies used as part of a holistic approach to healing.



The program, similar to volunteer programs across the country, was put on hold during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The Navajo nation witnessed a really tragic surge of COVID cases that required that limited medical resources be diverted to help cope with the pandemic,” says Dr. Kohn. “It really wasn’t safe for residents to travel to the reservation either, so the rotation had to be put on hold.” However, in April 2021, the health care staff of the Chinle Comprehensive Care Facility reached out to revive the program, which is now pending the green light from the AAD. It is unclear if or when AAD leadership will allow this rotation to restart. Dr. Kohn hopes to be able to start accepting new applications soon. “This rotation provides a wealth of benefits to all those involved, from the residents who get the chance to work with a unique population in need to the clinicians who gain a diverse understanding of dermatology treatment techniques. And of course, for the patients, who are so appreciative of the care they receive from our volunteers” (personal communication, June 25, 2021).

How to Get Involved
Dr. Kohn is happy to field questions regarding the rotation and requests for more information via email ([email protected]). Residents interested in this program also may reach out to the AAD’s Education and Volunteers Abroad Committee to express interest in the NAHSRR program’s reinstatement.

Destination Healthy Skin

Since 2017, the Skin Cancer Foundation’s Destination Healthy Skin (DHS) RV has been the setting for more than 3800 free skin cancer screenings provided by volunteers within underserved populations across the United States (Figure 2). After a year hiatus due to the pandemic, DHS hit the road again, starting in New York City on August 1 to 3, 2021. From there, the DHS RV will traverse the country in one large loop, starting with visits to large and small cities in the Midwest and the West Coast. Following a visit to San Diego, California, in early October, the RV will turn east, with stops in Arizona, Texas, and several southern states before ending in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Elizabeth Hale, Senior Vice President of the Skin Cancer Foundation, feels that increasing awareness of the importance of regular skin cancer screening for those at risk is more important than ever. “We know that many people in the past year put routine cancer screening on the back burner, but we’re beginning to appreciate that this has led to significant delays in skin cancer diagnosis and potentially more significant disease when cases are diagnosed.” Dr. Hale noted that as the country continues to return to a degree of normalcy, the backlog of patients now seeking their routine screening has led to longer wait times. She expects DHS may offer some relief. “There are no appointments necessary. If the RV is close to their hometown, patients have an advantage in being able to be seen first come, first served, without having to wait for an appointment or make sure their insurance is accepted. It’s a free screening that can increase access to dermatologists” (personal communication, June 21, 2021).

Figure 2. Drs. Elizabeth Hale (left) and Julie Karen (right) working a volunteer shift aboard the Destination Healthy Skin RV in New York City in August 2019. Photograph courtesy of Elizabeth Hale, MD (New York, New York).

The program’s organizers acknowledge that DHS is not a long-term solution for improving dermatology access in the United States and recognize that more needs to be done to raise awareness, both of the value that screenings can provide and the importance of sun-protective behavior. “This is an important first step,” says Dr. Hale. “It’s important that we disseminate that no one is immune to skin cancer. It’s about education, and this is a tool to educate patients that everyone should have a skin check once a year, regardless of where you live or what your skin type is” (personal communication, June 21, 2021).

Volunteer dermatologists are needed to assist with screenings when the DHS RV arrives in their community. Providers complete a screening form identifying any concerning lesions and can document specific lesions using the patient’s cell phone. Following the screenings, participating dermatologists are welcome to invite participants to make appointments at their practices or suggest local clinics for follow-up care.

How to Get Involved
The schedule for this year’s screening events can be found online (https://www.skincancer.org/early-detection/destination-healthy-skin/). Consider volunteering (https://www.skincancer.org/early-detection/destination-healthy-skin/physician-volunteers/) or helping to raise awareness by reaching out to local dermatology societies or free clinics in your area. Residents and physician’s assistants are welcome to volunteer as well, as long as they are under the on-site supervision of a board-certified dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

As medical professionals, we all recognize there are valuable contributions we can make to groups and organizations that need our help. The stresses and pressure of work and everyday life can make finding the time to offer that help seem impossible. Although it may seem counterintuitive, volunteering our time to help others can help us better navigate the professional burnout that many medical professionals experience today.

References
  1. Ezekor M, Pona A, Cline A, et al. An increasing trend in the number of publications and research projects among dermatology residency applicants. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:214-216.
  2. Atluri S, Seivright JR, Shi VY, et al. Volunteer and work experiences among dermatology residency applicants. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:E97-E98.
  3. Abokwidir M, Davis SA, Fleischer AB, et al. Use of the emergency department for dermatologic care in the United States by ethnic group. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26:392-394.
  4. Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19:47-59.
  5. Jack AR, Spence AA, Nichols BJ, et al. Cutaneous conditions leading to dermatology consultations in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12:551-555.
  6. Ayoubi N, Mirza A-S, Swanson J, et al. Dermatologic care of uninsured patients managed at free clinics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:433-437.
  7. Wright AA, Katz IT. Beyond burnout—redesigning care to restore meaning and sanity for physicians. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:309-311.
  8. Bull C, Aucoin JB. Voluntary association participation and life satisfaction: a replication note. J Gerontol. 1975;30:73-76.
  9. Iserson KV. Burnout syndrome: global medicine volunteering as a possible treatment strategy. J Emerg Med. 2018;54:516-521.
  10. Romero S. Navajo Nation becomes largest tribe in U.S. after pandemic enrollment surge. New York Times. May 21, 2021. Accessed August 19, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/navajo-cherokee-population.html
  11. Moore GR, Benally J, Tuttle S. The Navajo Nation: quick facts. University of Arizona website. Accessed August 19, 2021. https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1471.pdf
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Issue
cutis - 108(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E32-E35
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

The adage “so much to do, so little time” aptly describes the daily challenges facing dermatologists and dermatology residents. The time and attention required by direct patient care, writing notes, navigating electronic health records, and engaging in education and research as well as family commitments can drain even the most tireless clinician. In addition, dermatologists are expected to play a critical role in clinic and practice management to successfully curate an online presence and adapt their skills to successfully manage a teledermatology practice. Coupled with the time spent socializing with friends or colleagues and time for personal hobbies or exercise, it’s easy to see how sleep deprivation is common in many of our colleagues.

What’s being left out of these jam-packed schedules? Increasingly, it is the time and expertise dedicated to volunteering in our local communities. Two recent research letters highlighted how a dramatic increase in the number of research projects and publications is not mirrored by a similar increase in volunteer experiences as dermatology residency selection becomes more competitive.1,2

Although the rate of volunteerism among practicing dermatologists has yet to be studied, a brief review suggests a component of unmet dermatology need within our communities. It’s estimated that approximately 5% to 10% of all emergency department visits are for dermatologic concerns.3-5 In many cases, the reason for the visit is nonurgent and instead reflects a lack of other options for care. However, the need for dermatologists extends beyond the emergency department setting. A review of the prevalence of patients presenting for care to a group of regional free clinics found that 8% (N=5553) of all visitors sought care for dermatologic concerns.6 The benefit is not just for those seated on the examination table; research has shown that while many of the underlying factors resulting in physician burnout stem from systemic issues, participating in volunteer opportunities helps combat burnout in ourselves and our colleagues.7-9 Herein, opportunities that exist for dermatologists to reconnect with their communities, advocate for causes distinctive to the specialty, and care for neighbors most in need are highlighted.

Camp Wonder

Every year, children from across the United States living with chronic and debilitating skin conditions get the opportunity to join fellow campers and spend a week just being kids without the constant focus on being a patient. Camp Wonder’s founder and director, Francesca Tenconi, describes the camp as a place where kids “can form a community and can feel free to be themselves, without judgment, without stares. They get the chance to forget about their skin disease and be themselves” (oral communication, June 18, 2021). Tenconi and the camp’s cofounders and medical directors, Drs. Jenny Kim and Stefani Takahashi, envisioned the camp as a place for all campers regardless of their skin condition to feel safe and welcome. This overall mission guides camp leadership and staff every year over the course of the camp week where campers participate in a mix of traditional and nontraditional summer activities that are safe and accessible for all, from spending time in the pool to arts and crafts and a ropes course.

Camp Wonder is in its 21st year of hosting children and adolescents from across North America at its camp in Livermore, California. This year, Tenconi expects about 100 campers during the last week in July. Camp Wonder relies on medical staff volunteers to make the camp setting safe, inclusive, and fun. “Our dermatology residents and dermatology volunteers are a huge part of why we’re able to have camp,” said Tenconi. “A lot of our kids require very specific medical care throughout the week. We are able to provide this camp experience for them because we have this medical support system available, this specialized dermatology knowledge.” She also noted the benefit to the volunteers themselves, saying,“The feedback we get a lot from residents and dermatologists is that camp gave them a chance to understand the true-life impact of some of the skin diseases these kids and families are living with. Kids will open up to them and tell them how their disease has impacted them personally” (oral communication, June 18, 2021).



Volunteer medical providers help manage the medical needs of the campers beginning at check-in and work shifts in the infirmary as well as help with dispensing and administering medications, changing dressings, and applying ointments or other topical medications. When not assisting with medical care, medical staff can get to know the campers; help out with arts and crafts, games, sports, and other camp activities; and put on skits and plays for campers at nightly camp hangouts (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A and B, Camp Wonder volunteer medical staff in costume rehearsing for a nightly skit and breaking their own rules about soap overuse. Photographs courtesy of John Peters, MD (Portsmouth, Virginia).


How to Get Involved
Visit the website (https://www.csdf.org/camp-wonder) for information on becoming a medical volunteer for 2022. Donations to help keep the camp running also are greatly appreciated, as attendance, including travel costs, is free for families through the Children’s Skin Disease Foundation. Finally, dermatologists can help by keeping their young patients with skin disease in mind as future campers. The camp welcomes kids from across the United States and Canada and invites questions from dermatologists and families on how to become a camper and what the experience is like.

 

 

Native American Health Services Rotation

Located in the southwestern United States, the Navajo Nation is North America’s largest Native American tribe by enrollment and resides on the largest reservation in the United States.10 Comprised of 27,000 square miles within portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, the reservation’s total area is greater than that of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined.11 The reservation is home to an estimated 180,000 Navajo people, a population roughly the size of Salt Lake City, Utah. Yet, many homes on the reservation are without electricity, running water, telephones, or broadband access, and many roads on the reservation remain unpaved. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 4 dermatology residents were selected each year to travel to this unique and remote location to work with the staff of the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility (Chinle, Arizona), an Indian Health Service facility, as part of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–sponsored Native American Health Services Resident Rotation (NAHSRR).

Dr. Lucinda Kohn, Assistant Professor of Dermatology at the University of Colorado and the director of the NAHSRR program discovered the value of this rotation firsthand as a dermatology resident. In 2017, she traveled to the area to spend 2 weeks serving within the community. “I went because of a personal connection. My husband is Native American, although not Navajo. I wanted to experience what it was like to provide dermatologic care for Native Americans. I found the Navajo people to be so friendly and so grateful for our care. The clinicians we worked with at Chinle were excited to have us share our expertise and to pass on their knowledge to us,” said Dr. Kohn (personal communication, June 24, 2021).

Rotating residents provide dermatologic care for the Navajo people and share their unique medical skill set to local primary care clinicians serving as preceptors. They also may have an opportunity to learn from Native healers about traditional Navajo beliefs and ceremonies used as part of a holistic approach to healing.



The program, similar to volunteer programs across the country, was put on hold during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The Navajo nation witnessed a really tragic surge of COVID cases that required that limited medical resources be diverted to help cope with the pandemic,” says Dr. Kohn. “It really wasn’t safe for residents to travel to the reservation either, so the rotation had to be put on hold.” However, in April 2021, the health care staff of the Chinle Comprehensive Care Facility reached out to revive the program, which is now pending the green light from the AAD. It is unclear if or when AAD leadership will allow this rotation to restart. Dr. Kohn hopes to be able to start accepting new applications soon. “This rotation provides a wealth of benefits to all those involved, from the residents who get the chance to work with a unique population in need to the clinicians who gain a diverse understanding of dermatology treatment techniques. And of course, for the patients, who are so appreciative of the care they receive from our volunteers” (personal communication, June 25, 2021).

How to Get Involved
Dr. Kohn is happy to field questions regarding the rotation and requests for more information via email ([email protected]). Residents interested in this program also may reach out to the AAD’s Education and Volunteers Abroad Committee to express interest in the NAHSRR program’s reinstatement.

Destination Healthy Skin

Since 2017, the Skin Cancer Foundation’s Destination Healthy Skin (DHS) RV has been the setting for more than 3800 free skin cancer screenings provided by volunteers within underserved populations across the United States (Figure 2). After a year hiatus due to the pandemic, DHS hit the road again, starting in New York City on August 1 to 3, 2021. From there, the DHS RV will traverse the country in one large loop, starting with visits to large and small cities in the Midwest and the West Coast. Following a visit to San Diego, California, in early October, the RV will turn east, with stops in Arizona, Texas, and several southern states before ending in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Elizabeth Hale, Senior Vice President of the Skin Cancer Foundation, feels that increasing awareness of the importance of regular skin cancer screening for those at risk is more important than ever. “We know that many people in the past year put routine cancer screening on the back burner, but we’re beginning to appreciate that this has led to significant delays in skin cancer diagnosis and potentially more significant disease when cases are diagnosed.” Dr. Hale noted that as the country continues to return to a degree of normalcy, the backlog of patients now seeking their routine screening has led to longer wait times. She expects DHS may offer some relief. “There are no appointments necessary. If the RV is close to their hometown, patients have an advantage in being able to be seen first come, first served, without having to wait for an appointment or make sure their insurance is accepted. It’s a free screening that can increase access to dermatologists” (personal communication, June 21, 2021).

Figure 2. Drs. Elizabeth Hale (left) and Julie Karen (right) working a volunteer shift aboard the Destination Healthy Skin RV in New York City in August 2019. Photograph courtesy of Elizabeth Hale, MD (New York, New York).

The program’s organizers acknowledge that DHS is not a long-term solution for improving dermatology access in the United States and recognize that more needs to be done to raise awareness, both of the value that screenings can provide and the importance of sun-protective behavior. “This is an important first step,” says Dr. Hale. “It’s important that we disseminate that no one is immune to skin cancer. It’s about education, and this is a tool to educate patients that everyone should have a skin check once a year, regardless of where you live or what your skin type is” (personal communication, June 21, 2021).

Volunteer dermatologists are needed to assist with screenings when the DHS RV arrives in their community. Providers complete a screening form identifying any concerning lesions and can document specific lesions using the patient’s cell phone. Following the screenings, participating dermatologists are welcome to invite participants to make appointments at their practices or suggest local clinics for follow-up care.

How to Get Involved
The schedule for this year’s screening events can be found online (https://www.skincancer.org/early-detection/destination-healthy-skin/). Consider volunteering (https://www.skincancer.org/early-detection/destination-healthy-skin/physician-volunteers/) or helping to raise awareness by reaching out to local dermatology societies or free clinics in your area. Residents and physician’s assistants are welcome to volunteer as well, as long as they are under the on-site supervision of a board-certified dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

As medical professionals, we all recognize there are valuable contributions we can make to groups and organizations that need our help. The stresses and pressure of work and everyday life can make finding the time to offer that help seem impossible. Although it may seem counterintuitive, volunteering our time to help others can help us better navigate the professional burnout that many medical professionals experience today.

The adage “so much to do, so little time” aptly describes the daily challenges facing dermatologists and dermatology residents. The time and attention required by direct patient care, writing notes, navigating electronic health records, and engaging in education and research as well as family commitments can drain even the most tireless clinician. In addition, dermatologists are expected to play a critical role in clinic and practice management to successfully curate an online presence and adapt their skills to successfully manage a teledermatology practice. Coupled with the time spent socializing with friends or colleagues and time for personal hobbies or exercise, it’s easy to see how sleep deprivation is common in many of our colleagues.

What’s being left out of these jam-packed schedules? Increasingly, it is the time and expertise dedicated to volunteering in our local communities. Two recent research letters highlighted how a dramatic increase in the number of research projects and publications is not mirrored by a similar increase in volunteer experiences as dermatology residency selection becomes more competitive.1,2

Although the rate of volunteerism among practicing dermatologists has yet to be studied, a brief review suggests a component of unmet dermatology need within our communities. It’s estimated that approximately 5% to 10% of all emergency department visits are for dermatologic concerns.3-5 In many cases, the reason for the visit is nonurgent and instead reflects a lack of other options for care. However, the need for dermatologists extends beyond the emergency department setting. A review of the prevalence of patients presenting for care to a group of regional free clinics found that 8% (N=5553) of all visitors sought care for dermatologic concerns.6 The benefit is not just for those seated on the examination table; research has shown that while many of the underlying factors resulting in physician burnout stem from systemic issues, participating in volunteer opportunities helps combat burnout in ourselves and our colleagues.7-9 Herein, opportunities that exist for dermatologists to reconnect with their communities, advocate for causes distinctive to the specialty, and care for neighbors most in need are highlighted.

Camp Wonder

Every year, children from across the United States living with chronic and debilitating skin conditions get the opportunity to join fellow campers and spend a week just being kids without the constant focus on being a patient. Camp Wonder’s founder and director, Francesca Tenconi, describes the camp as a place where kids “can form a community and can feel free to be themselves, without judgment, without stares. They get the chance to forget about their skin disease and be themselves” (oral communication, June 18, 2021). Tenconi and the camp’s cofounders and medical directors, Drs. Jenny Kim and Stefani Takahashi, envisioned the camp as a place for all campers regardless of their skin condition to feel safe and welcome. This overall mission guides camp leadership and staff every year over the course of the camp week where campers participate in a mix of traditional and nontraditional summer activities that are safe and accessible for all, from spending time in the pool to arts and crafts and a ropes course.

Camp Wonder is in its 21st year of hosting children and adolescents from across North America at its camp in Livermore, California. This year, Tenconi expects about 100 campers during the last week in July. Camp Wonder relies on medical staff volunteers to make the camp setting safe, inclusive, and fun. “Our dermatology residents and dermatology volunteers are a huge part of why we’re able to have camp,” said Tenconi. “A lot of our kids require very specific medical care throughout the week. We are able to provide this camp experience for them because we have this medical support system available, this specialized dermatology knowledge.” She also noted the benefit to the volunteers themselves, saying,“The feedback we get a lot from residents and dermatologists is that camp gave them a chance to understand the true-life impact of some of the skin diseases these kids and families are living with. Kids will open up to them and tell them how their disease has impacted them personally” (oral communication, June 18, 2021).



Volunteer medical providers help manage the medical needs of the campers beginning at check-in and work shifts in the infirmary as well as help with dispensing and administering medications, changing dressings, and applying ointments or other topical medications. When not assisting with medical care, medical staff can get to know the campers; help out with arts and crafts, games, sports, and other camp activities; and put on skits and plays for campers at nightly camp hangouts (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A and B, Camp Wonder volunteer medical staff in costume rehearsing for a nightly skit and breaking their own rules about soap overuse. Photographs courtesy of John Peters, MD (Portsmouth, Virginia).


How to Get Involved
Visit the website (https://www.csdf.org/camp-wonder) for information on becoming a medical volunteer for 2022. Donations to help keep the camp running also are greatly appreciated, as attendance, including travel costs, is free for families through the Children’s Skin Disease Foundation. Finally, dermatologists can help by keeping their young patients with skin disease in mind as future campers. The camp welcomes kids from across the United States and Canada and invites questions from dermatologists and families on how to become a camper and what the experience is like.

 

 

Native American Health Services Rotation

Located in the southwestern United States, the Navajo Nation is North America’s largest Native American tribe by enrollment and resides on the largest reservation in the United States.10 Comprised of 27,000 square miles within portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, the reservation’s total area is greater than that of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined.11 The reservation is home to an estimated 180,000 Navajo people, a population roughly the size of Salt Lake City, Utah. Yet, many homes on the reservation are without electricity, running water, telephones, or broadband access, and many roads on the reservation remain unpaved. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 4 dermatology residents were selected each year to travel to this unique and remote location to work with the staff of the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility (Chinle, Arizona), an Indian Health Service facility, as part of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–sponsored Native American Health Services Resident Rotation (NAHSRR).

Dr. Lucinda Kohn, Assistant Professor of Dermatology at the University of Colorado and the director of the NAHSRR program discovered the value of this rotation firsthand as a dermatology resident. In 2017, she traveled to the area to spend 2 weeks serving within the community. “I went because of a personal connection. My husband is Native American, although not Navajo. I wanted to experience what it was like to provide dermatologic care for Native Americans. I found the Navajo people to be so friendly and so grateful for our care. The clinicians we worked with at Chinle were excited to have us share our expertise and to pass on their knowledge to us,” said Dr. Kohn (personal communication, June 24, 2021).

Rotating residents provide dermatologic care for the Navajo people and share their unique medical skill set to local primary care clinicians serving as preceptors. They also may have an opportunity to learn from Native healers about traditional Navajo beliefs and ceremonies used as part of a holistic approach to healing.



The program, similar to volunteer programs across the country, was put on hold during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The Navajo nation witnessed a really tragic surge of COVID cases that required that limited medical resources be diverted to help cope with the pandemic,” says Dr. Kohn. “It really wasn’t safe for residents to travel to the reservation either, so the rotation had to be put on hold.” However, in April 2021, the health care staff of the Chinle Comprehensive Care Facility reached out to revive the program, which is now pending the green light from the AAD. It is unclear if or when AAD leadership will allow this rotation to restart. Dr. Kohn hopes to be able to start accepting new applications soon. “This rotation provides a wealth of benefits to all those involved, from the residents who get the chance to work with a unique population in need to the clinicians who gain a diverse understanding of dermatology treatment techniques. And of course, for the patients, who are so appreciative of the care they receive from our volunteers” (personal communication, June 25, 2021).

How to Get Involved
Dr. Kohn is happy to field questions regarding the rotation and requests for more information via email ([email protected]). Residents interested in this program also may reach out to the AAD’s Education and Volunteers Abroad Committee to express interest in the NAHSRR program’s reinstatement.

Destination Healthy Skin

Since 2017, the Skin Cancer Foundation’s Destination Healthy Skin (DHS) RV has been the setting for more than 3800 free skin cancer screenings provided by volunteers within underserved populations across the United States (Figure 2). After a year hiatus due to the pandemic, DHS hit the road again, starting in New York City on August 1 to 3, 2021. From there, the DHS RV will traverse the country in one large loop, starting with visits to large and small cities in the Midwest and the West Coast. Following a visit to San Diego, California, in early October, the RV will turn east, with stops in Arizona, Texas, and several southern states before ending in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Dr. Elizabeth Hale, Senior Vice President of the Skin Cancer Foundation, feels that increasing awareness of the importance of regular skin cancer screening for those at risk is more important than ever. “We know that many people in the past year put routine cancer screening on the back burner, but we’re beginning to appreciate that this has led to significant delays in skin cancer diagnosis and potentially more significant disease when cases are diagnosed.” Dr. Hale noted that as the country continues to return to a degree of normalcy, the backlog of patients now seeking their routine screening has led to longer wait times. She expects DHS may offer some relief. “There are no appointments necessary. If the RV is close to their hometown, patients have an advantage in being able to be seen first come, first served, without having to wait for an appointment or make sure their insurance is accepted. It’s a free screening that can increase access to dermatologists” (personal communication, June 21, 2021).

Figure 2. Drs. Elizabeth Hale (left) and Julie Karen (right) working a volunteer shift aboard the Destination Healthy Skin RV in New York City in August 2019. Photograph courtesy of Elizabeth Hale, MD (New York, New York).

The program’s organizers acknowledge that DHS is not a long-term solution for improving dermatology access in the United States and recognize that more needs to be done to raise awareness, both of the value that screenings can provide and the importance of sun-protective behavior. “This is an important first step,” says Dr. Hale. “It’s important that we disseminate that no one is immune to skin cancer. It’s about education, and this is a tool to educate patients that everyone should have a skin check once a year, regardless of where you live or what your skin type is” (personal communication, June 21, 2021).

Volunteer dermatologists are needed to assist with screenings when the DHS RV arrives in their community. Providers complete a screening form identifying any concerning lesions and can document specific lesions using the patient’s cell phone. Following the screenings, participating dermatologists are welcome to invite participants to make appointments at their practices or suggest local clinics for follow-up care.

How to Get Involved
The schedule for this year’s screening events can be found online (https://www.skincancer.org/early-detection/destination-healthy-skin/). Consider volunteering (https://www.skincancer.org/early-detection/destination-healthy-skin/physician-volunteers/) or helping to raise awareness by reaching out to local dermatology societies or free clinics in your area. Residents and physician’s assistants are welcome to volunteer as well, as long as they are under the on-site supervision of a board-certified dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

As medical professionals, we all recognize there are valuable contributions we can make to groups and organizations that need our help. The stresses and pressure of work and everyday life can make finding the time to offer that help seem impossible. Although it may seem counterintuitive, volunteering our time to help others can help us better navigate the professional burnout that many medical professionals experience today.

References
  1. Ezekor M, Pona A, Cline A, et al. An increasing trend in the number of publications and research projects among dermatology residency applicants. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:214-216.
  2. Atluri S, Seivright JR, Shi VY, et al. Volunteer and work experiences among dermatology residency applicants. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:E97-E98.
  3. Abokwidir M, Davis SA, Fleischer AB, et al. Use of the emergency department for dermatologic care in the United States by ethnic group. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26:392-394.
  4. Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19:47-59.
  5. Jack AR, Spence AA, Nichols BJ, et al. Cutaneous conditions leading to dermatology consultations in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12:551-555.
  6. Ayoubi N, Mirza A-S, Swanson J, et al. Dermatologic care of uninsured patients managed at free clinics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:433-437.
  7. Wright AA, Katz IT. Beyond burnout—redesigning care to restore meaning and sanity for physicians. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:309-311.
  8. Bull C, Aucoin JB. Voluntary association participation and life satisfaction: a replication note. J Gerontol. 1975;30:73-76.
  9. Iserson KV. Burnout syndrome: global medicine volunteering as a possible treatment strategy. J Emerg Med. 2018;54:516-521.
  10. Romero S. Navajo Nation becomes largest tribe in U.S. after pandemic enrollment surge. New York Times. May 21, 2021. Accessed August 19, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/navajo-cherokee-population.html
  11. Moore GR, Benally J, Tuttle S. The Navajo Nation: quick facts. University of Arizona website. Accessed August 19, 2021. https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1471.pdf
References
  1. Ezekor M, Pona A, Cline A, et al. An increasing trend in the number of publications and research projects among dermatology residency applicants. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83:214-216.
  2. Atluri S, Seivright JR, Shi VY, et al. Volunteer and work experiences among dermatology residency applicants. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:E97-E98.
  3. Abokwidir M, Davis SA, Fleischer AB, et al. Use of the emergency department for dermatologic care in the United States by ethnic group. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26:392-394.
  4. Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19:47-59.
  5. Jack AR, Spence AA, Nichols BJ, et al. Cutaneous conditions leading to dermatology consultations in the emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12:551-555.
  6. Ayoubi N, Mirza A-S, Swanson J, et al. Dermatologic care of uninsured patients managed at free clinics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:433-437.
  7. Wright AA, Katz IT. Beyond burnout—redesigning care to restore meaning and sanity for physicians. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:309-311.
  8. Bull C, Aucoin JB. Voluntary association participation and life satisfaction: a replication note. J Gerontol. 1975;30:73-76.
  9. Iserson KV. Burnout syndrome: global medicine volunteering as a possible treatment strategy. J Emerg Med. 2018;54:516-521.
  10. Romero S. Navajo Nation becomes largest tribe in U.S. after pandemic enrollment surge. New York Times. May 21, 2021. Accessed August 19, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/navajo-cherokee-population.html
  11. Moore GR, Benally J, Tuttle S. The Navajo Nation: quick facts. University of Arizona website. Accessed August 19, 2021. https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1471.pdf
Issue
cutis - 108(2)
Issue
cutis - 108(2)
Page Number
E32-E35
Page Number
E32-E35
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Inside the Article

Resident Pearl

  • Volunteerism rates among dermatology residents seem to be decreasing. We should work to combat this trend by finding ways to give back to our communities and spur our colleagues to do the same.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Long-Distance Dermatology: Lessons From an Interview on Remote Practice During a Pandemic and Beyond

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/28/2021 - 12:33

For the US health care system, the year 2020 was one of great change as well as extreme pain and hardship: some physical, but much emotional and financial. Dermatologists nationwide have not been sheltered from the winds of change. Yet as with most great challenges, one also can discern great change for the better if you look for it. One area of major growth in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is the expansion of telehealth, specifically teledermatology.

Prior to the pandemic, teledermatology was in a phase of modest expansion.1 Since the start of the pandemic, however, the adoption of telemedicine services in the United States has been beyond exponential. Before the pandemic, an estimated 15,000 Medicare recipients received telehealth services on a weekly basis. Yet by the end of April 2020, only 3 months after the first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States, nearly 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries were utilizing telehealth services on a weekly basis.2 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has recognized the vast increase in need and responded with the addition of 144 new telehealth services covered by Medicare in the last year. In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services moved to make many of the previously provisional policies permanent, expanding long-term coverage for telehealth services,2 and use of teledermatology has expanded in parallel. Although the impetus for this change was simple necessity, the benefits of expanded teledermatology are likely to drive its continued incorporation into our daily practices.

Kevin Wright, MD, is a staff dermatologist at the Naval Medical Center San Diego (San Diego, California) and an Associate Professor of Dermatology at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, Maryland). In this interview, we discussed his experience incorporating a teledermatology component into his postresidency practice, the pros and cons of teledermatology practice, and ways that residents can prepare for a future in teledermatology.

Would you start by briefly describing your work model now?

My primary job is a Monday-through-Friday classic dermatology clinic job. On the weekends or days off, I see asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology through a specialized platform. On weekends, I tend to see anywhere between 20 and 40 patients in about a 6-hour period with breaks in between.

What does a typical “weekend” day of work look like?

In general, I’ll wake up early before my family and spend maybe an hour working. Oftentimes, that will be in my truck parked down by the beach, where I will go for a run or surf before logging on. If I have 40 visits scheduled that day, I can spend a few hours, message most of them, clarify some aspects of the visit, then go and have breakfast with my family before logging back on and completing the encounters.

Is most of your interaction with patients asynchronous, messaging back and forth to take history?

A few states require a phone call, so those are synchronous, and every Medicaid patient requires a video call. I do synchronous visits with all of my isotretinoin patients at first. It’s a mixed bag, but a lot of my visits are done entirely asynchronously.

What attracted you to this model?

During residency, I always felt that many of the ways we saw patients seemed extraordinarily inefficient. My best example of this is isotretinoin follow-ups. Before this year, most of my colleagues were uncomfortable with virtual isotretinoin follow-ups or thought it was a ridiculous idea. Frankly, I never shared this sentiment. Once I had my own board certification, I knew I was going to pursue teledermatology, because seeing kids take a half day off of school to come in for a 10-minute isotretinoin appointment (that’s mainly just a conversation about sports) just didn’t make sense to me. So I knew I wanted to pursue this idea, I just didn’t know exactly how. One day I was approached by a close friend and mentor of mine who had just purchased a teledermatology platform. She asked me if I would like to moonlight once I graduated and I jumped at the opportunity.

 

 

What steps did you take prior to graduating to help prepare you to practice teledermatology?

The most important thing I did—and the most important thing I think for third-year residents to do—is to set myself up for success by starting the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) licensure and certification process. Once you have a DEA number, you can apply for Medicare and Medicaid. The nice thing about Medicare is you can start billing immediately after you apply, which is important. The reimbursement isn’t as high, but they pay faster, which allows you to start seeing patients through teledermatology right away. In a pinch, you could see all Medicare patients and make a living until you’ve completed the rest of the process. Once you have a Medicare and Medicaid number, you can apply for credentialing through private payers. However, the Medicare process takes 3 months, and private-payers credentialing takes about 90 days as well. That’s a lot of time! Before finishing residency, I recommend you make sure you have an unrestricted DEA license and you apply for Medicare/Medicaid credentials. Then, when you’re looking at future employment, you can start getting state licenses almost immediately in whatever states you anticipate needing them.

What are the top 3 benefits of incorporating teledermatology into your practice?

Accessibility is one huge benefit. If you’re practicing in a rural area, you’re basically giving [patients] back their time. Teledermatology takes patients much less time, and they get the same level of care. That’s a big selling point. Your patients will be very happy and loyal because of that.

The other thing I never would have foreseen before starting teledermatology is the amazing follow-up you can get. I think many dermatology residents will agree that there are those patients where you think, “Wow, I wish I could see them back. I wonder how they did,” but you never see them again. That’s not the case with teledermatology. I have a running list of all my interesting cases, and I’ll just shoot them a message 2 or 4 weeks later and at their convenience, they can submit a quick photo. I get that excellent feedback, and that’s huge to me for my own personal education and growth.

The third would be experience. I have 24 state medical licenses, and I see patients of all varieties: all socioeconomic backgrounds and skin types and many with severe skin conditions never managed before by a specialist. That, frankly, has increased my comfort level for seeing patients of all types. It forces me to expand my utilization of certain therapies because some people can’t afford 95% of medications we prescribe commonly. I find that challenge very rewarding. It’s something I’m not sure you can achieve by just practicing within your bubble. Inevitably you are going to see a certain type of patient that your hospital or practice attracts by merit of its geography or catchment area. Teledermatology allows you to see the full spectrum of dermatology.

What are the biggest cons to incorporating teledermatology into your practice?

To start off, some patients have boundary issues. Every 200 patients or so, I’ll have someone who submits a visit at 11:30 pm, and then at 1:00 or 2:00 am they’re asking, “Why am I not being seen, what’s going on?” Maintaining patient boundaries becomes exponentially more difficult. In some respects, you are now expected to be available 24/7 because some people have unreasonable expectations. That is one of the most difficult aspects of practicing the way I do.

The second is reimbursement. In other practice models I can bill more in half the time by seeing a patient in person, doing a skin screening and a few biopsies. I believe there’s always a role for teledermatology in any practice, but ultimately dermatologists are pragmatic people who need to be smart about time management. At some point, it becomes difficult to pay the bills if reimbursement is lacking. That’s one of the bigger downsides to teledermatology. We still need to figure out how to reimburse to incentivize what’s best for the patient.

Could you talk more about the effect on work-life balance?

I think the things that make teledermatology appealing are the same things that could end up disrupting your work-life balance. On the positive side, you can vacation in Hawaii, work for 2 hours each morning, and pay for the whole thing. That’s very appealing to me! The downside is that there are always patients in the queue. In some sense, your waiting room is always half-full, 24/7. Mentally, you have to become comfortable with that, and you have to develop boundaries. I have very specific times I do teledermatology and then I log off. This helps me establish boundaries and creates balance.

You touched on it earlier regarding isotretinoin visits, but what other facets of practice do you think are particularly well-suited to teledermatology?

There are a few that I’ve incorporated into my practice quite aggressively. Almost all acne is going to go to a teledermatology visit. That’s in large part due to payer parity. For the most part, you make the same doing an acne visit online as you will doing it in person. Your patients will be getting the same level of care, better follow-up, and you’ll make the same amount of money. Another thing I do as a patient courtesy is wound checks postsurgery or post-Mohs [micrographic surgery]. There is a huge benefit there to seeing your patients because you can identify infections early, answer simple questions, and reduce in-person clinic visits. That’s a win.

What are visit types you feel are not well-suited to teledermatology or that you approach with more caution?

This will be different for everyone to some degree. I think practitioners need to be alert and use their best judgement when approaching any new patient or new concern. Pigmented lesions certainly give me pause. Although the technology is getting better every day, I believe there is still a gap between seeing a photo of a lesion and seeing a pigmented lesion in person, being able to get up close and examine it dermoscopically. Teledermoscopy, however, is an emerging business model as well, and it will be interesting to see what role this can play as it gets incorporated.

You mentioned having medical licenses in several states. Can you describe the process you went through to obtain these licenses?

It’s a painful process. I started realizing this was something I wanted to incorporate after residency, so I started looking into applying for medical licenses early. Teledermatology companies often will reimburse you and help you to get licenses. I was lucky enough to get assistance, which was essential because it is an onerous process. If you can work that into your contract during negotiations that would be ideal. Not everyone will be as lucky as I was, though. If that doesn’t pertain to you, pick a few states that have larger populations around you, where you know that they have a lot of need and start applying there. Be aware that medical licensure takes about 6 months. Having this started around mid–third year is important.

Employers want someone they can use right away, so I found it very beneficial to approach an employer and be able to explain to them tangibly where you are in the process. For example, “I’ve got my DEA license, Medicare, Medicaid number, and I have licensure in your state and all the surrounding states.” You then have a leg to stand on with your negotiating. If you do the legwork and can then negotiate a higher percentage, you’ll make up the licensure fees in a half day of work. It’s an investment toward your professional career.

Any final thoughts?

I think that insurers are very interested in teledermatology because there’s a potential for huge cost savings. As the dust settles with COVID-19 and we see how telemedicine has changed medicine in general, I really think that payers are going to be more aggressive about requiring teledermatology from their dermatologists. I think residents need to anticipate that teledermatology will be some part of their practice in the future and should start planning now to be prepared for this brave new world going forward.

References
  1. Yim KM, Florek AG, Oh DH, et al. Teledermatology in the United States: an update in a dynamic era. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24:691-697.
  2. Shatzkes MM, Borha EL. Permanent expansion of Medicare telehealth services. The National Law Review website. Published December 7, 2020. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/permanent-expansion-medicare-telehealth-services
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Issue
cutis - 107(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E37-E39
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Correspondence: W. Hugh Lyford, MD, Naval Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr, San Diego, CA 92134 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

For the US health care system, the year 2020 was one of great change as well as extreme pain and hardship: some physical, but much emotional and financial. Dermatologists nationwide have not been sheltered from the winds of change. Yet as with most great challenges, one also can discern great change for the better if you look for it. One area of major growth in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is the expansion of telehealth, specifically teledermatology.

Prior to the pandemic, teledermatology was in a phase of modest expansion.1 Since the start of the pandemic, however, the adoption of telemedicine services in the United States has been beyond exponential. Before the pandemic, an estimated 15,000 Medicare recipients received telehealth services on a weekly basis. Yet by the end of April 2020, only 3 months after the first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States, nearly 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries were utilizing telehealth services on a weekly basis.2 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has recognized the vast increase in need and responded with the addition of 144 new telehealth services covered by Medicare in the last year. In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services moved to make many of the previously provisional policies permanent, expanding long-term coverage for telehealth services,2 and use of teledermatology has expanded in parallel. Although the impetus for this change was simple necessity, the benefits of expanded teledermatology are likely to drive its continued incorporation into our daily practices.

Kevin Wright, MD, is a staff dermatologist at the Naval Medical Center San Diego (San Diego, California) and an Associate Professor of Dermatology at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, Maryland). In this interview, we discussed his experience incorporating a teledermatology component into his postresidency practice, the pros and cons of teledermatology practice, and ways that residents can prepare for a future in teledermatology.

Would you start by briefly describing your work model now?

My primary job is a Monday-through-Friday classic dermatology clinic job. On the weekends or days off, I see asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology through a specialized platform. On weekends, I tend to see anywhere between 20 and 40 patients in about a 6-hour period with breaks in between.

What does a typical “weekend” day of work look like?

In general, I’ll wake up early before my family and spend maybe an hour working. Oftentimes, that will be in my truck parked down by the beach, where I will go for a run or surf before logging on. If I have 40 visits scheduled that day, I can spend a few hours, message most of them, clarify some aspects of the visit, then go and have breakfast with my family before logging back on and completing the encounters.

Is most of your interaction with patients asynchronous, messaging back and forth to take history?

A few states require a phone call, so those are synchronous, and every Medicaid patient requires a video call. I do synchronous visits with all of my isotretinoin patients at first. It’s a mixed bag, but a lot of my visits are done entirely asynchronously.

What attracted you to this model?

During residency, I always felt that many of the ways we saw patients seemed extraordinarily inefficient. My best example of this is isotretinoin follow-ups. Before this year, most of my colleagues were uncomfortable with virtual isotretinoin follow-ups or thought it was a ridiculous idea. Frankly, I never shared this sentiment. Once I had my own board certification, I knew I was going to pursue teledermatology, because seeing kids take a half day off of school to come in for a 10-minute isotretinoin appointment (that’s mainly just a conversation about sports) just didn’t make sense to me. So I knew I wanted to pursue this idea, I just didn’t know exactly how. One day I was approached by a close friend and mentor of mine who had just purchased a teledermatology platform. She asked me if I would like to moonlight once I graduated and I jumped at the opportunity.

 

 

What steps did you take prior to graduating to help prepare you to practice teledermatology?

The most important thing I did—and the most important thing I think for third-year residents to do—is to set myself up for success by starting the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) licensure and certification process. Once you have a DEA number, you can apply for Medicare and Medicaid. The nice thing about Medicare is you can start billing immediately after you apply, which is important. The reimbursement isn’t as high, but they pay faster, which allows you to start seeing patients through teledermatology right away. In a pinch, you could see all Medicare patients and make a living until you’ve completed the rest of the process. Once you have a Medicare and Medicaid number, you can apply for credentialing through private payers. However, the Medicare process takes 3 months, and private-payers credentialing takes about 90 days as well. That’s a lot of time! Before finishing residency, I recommend you make sure you have an unrestricted DEA license and you apply for Medicare/Medicaid credentials. Then, when you’re looking at future employment, you can start getting state licenses almost immediately in whatever states you anticipate needing them.

What are the top 3 benefits of incorporating teledermatology into your practice?

Accessibility is one huge benefit. If you’re practicing in a rural area, you’re basically giving [patients] back their time. Teledermatology takes patients much less time, and they get the same level of care. That’s a big selling point. Your patients will be very happy and loyal because of that.

The other thing I never would have foreseen before starting teledermatology is the amazing follow-up you can get. I think many dermatology residents will agree that there are those patients where you think, “Wow, I wish I could see them back. I wonder how they did,” but you never see them again. That’s not the case with teledermatology. I have a running list of all my interesting cases, and I’ll just shoot them a message 2 or 4 weeks later and at their convenience, they can submit a quick photo. I get that excellent feedback, and that’s huge to me for my own personal education and growth.

The third would be experience. I have 24 state medical licenses, and I see patients of all varieties: all socioeconomic backgrounds and skin types and many with severe skin conditions never managed before by a specialist. That, frankly, has increased my comfort level for seeing patients of all types. It forces me to expand my utilization of certain therapies because some people can’t afford 95% of medications we prescribe commonly. I find that challenge very rewarding. It’s something I’m not sure you can achieve by just practicing within your bubble. Inevitably you are going to see a certain type of patient that your hospital or practice attracts by merit of its geography or catchment area. Teledermatology allows you to see the full spectrum of dermatology.

What are the biggest cons to incorporating teledermatology into your practice?

To start off, some patients have boundary issues. Every 200 patients or so, I’ll have someone who submits a visit at 11:30 pm, and then at 1:00 or 2:00 am they’re asking, “Why am I not being seen, what’s going on?” Maintaining patient boundaries becomes exponentially more difficult. In some respects, you are now expected to be available 24/7 because some people have unreasonable expectations. That is one of the most difficult aspects of practicing the way I do.

The second is reimbursement. In other practice models I can bill more in half the time by seeing a patient in person, doing a skin screening and a few biopsies. I believe there’s always a role for teledermatology in any practice, but ultimately dermatologists are pragmatic people who need to be smart about time management. At some point, it becomes difficult to pay the bills if reimbursement is lacking. That’s one of the bigger downsides to teledermatology. We still need to figure out how to reimburse to incentivize what’s best for the patient.

Could you talk more about the effect on work-life balance?

I think the things that make teledermatology appealing are the same things that could end up disrupting your work-life balance. On the positive side, you can vacation in Hawaii, work for 2 hours each morning, and pay for the whole thing. That’s very appealing to me! The downside is that there are always patients in the queue. In some sense, your waiting room is always half-full, 24/7. Mentally, you have to become comfortable with that, and you have to develop boundaries. I have very specific times I do teledermatology and then I log off. This helps me establish boundaries and creates balance.

You touched on it earlier regarding isotretinoin visits, but what other facets of practice do you think are particularly well-suited to teledermatology?

There are a few that I’ve incorporated into my practice quite aggressively. Almost all acne is going to go to a teledermatology visit. That’s in large part due to payer parity. For the most part, you make the same doing an acne visit online as you will doing it in person. Your patients will be getting the same level of care, better follow-up, and you’ll make the same amount of money. Another thing I do as a patient courtesy is wound checks postsurgery or post-Mohs [micrographic surgery]. There is a huge benefit there to seeing your patients because you can identify infections early, answer simple questions, and reduce in-person clinic visits. That’s a win.

What are visit types you feel are not well-suited to teledermatology or that you approach with more caution?

This will be different for everyone to some degree. I think practitioners need to be alert and use their best judgement when approaching any new patient or new concern. Pigmented lesions certainly give me pause. Although the technology is getting better every day, I believe there is still a gap between seeing a photo of a lesion and seeing a pigmented lesion in person, being able to get up close and examine it dermoscopically. Teledermoscopy, however, is an emerging business model as well, and it will be interesting to see what role this can play as it gets incorporated.

You mentioned having medical licenses in several states. Can you describe the process you went through to obtain these licenses?

It’s a painful process. I started realizing this was something I wanted to incorporate after residency, so I started looking into applying for medical licenses early. Teledermatology companies often will reimburse you and help you to get licenses. I was lucky enough to get assistance, which was essential because it is an onerous process. If you can work that into your contract during negotiations that would be ideal. Not everyone will be as lucky as I was, though. If that doesn’t pertain to you, pick a few states that have larger populations around you, where you know that they have a lot of need and start applying there. Be aware that medical licensure takes about 6 months. Having this started around mid–third year is important.

Employers want someone they can use right away, so I found it very beneficial to approach an employer and be able to explain to them tangibly where you are in the process. For example, “I’ve got my DEA license, Medicare, Medicaid number, and I have licensure in your state and all the surrounding states.” You then have a leg to stand on with your negotiating. If you do the legwork and can then negotiate a higher percentage, you’ll make up the licensure fees in a half day of work. It’s an investment toward your professional career.

Any final thoughts?

I think that insurers are very interested in teledermatology because there’s a potential for huge cost savings. As the dust settles with COVID-19 and we see how telemedicine has changed medicine in general, I really think that payers are going to be more aggressive about requiring teledermatology from their dermatologists. I think residents need to anticipate that teledermatology will be some part of their practice in the future and should start planning now to be prepared for this brave new world going forward.

For the US health care system, the year 2020 was one of great change as well as extreme pain and hardship: some physical, but much emotional and financial. Dermatologists nationwide have not been sheltered from the winds of change. Yet as with most great challenges, one also can discern great change for the better if you look for it. One area of major growth in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is the expansion of telehealth, specifically teledermatology.

Prior to the pandemic, teledermatology was in a phase of modest expansion.1 Since the start of the pandemic, however, the adoption of telemedicine services in the United States has been beyond exponential. Before the pandemic, an estimated 15,000 Medicare recipients received telehealth services on a weekly basis. Yet by the end of April 2020, only 3 months after the first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States, nearly 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries were utilizing telehealth services on a weekly basis.2 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has recognized the vast increase in need and responded with the addition of 144 new telehealth services covered by Medicare in the last year. In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services moved to make many of the previously provisional policies permanent, expanding long-term coverage for telehealth services,2 and use of teledermatology has expanded in parallel. Although the impetus for this change was simple necessity, the benefits of expanded teledermatology are likely to drive its continued incorporation into our daily practices.

Kevin Wright, MD, is a staff dermatologist at the Naval Medical Center San Diego (San Diego, California) and an Associate Professor of Dermatology at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, Maryland). In this interview, we discussed his experience incorporating a teledermatology component into his postresidency practice, the pros and cons of teledermatology practice, and ways that residents can prepare for a future in teledermatology.

Would you start by briefly describing your work model now?

My primary job is a Monday-through-Friday classic dermatology clinic job. On the weekends or days off, I see asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology through a specialized platform. On weekends, I tend to see anywhere between 20 and 40 patients in about a 6-hour period with breaks in between.

What does a typical “weekend” day of work look like?

In general, I’ll wake up early before my family and spend maybe an hour working. Oftentimes, that will be in my truck parked down by the beach, where I will go for a run or surf before logging on. If I have 40 visits scheduled that day, I can spend a few hours, message most of them, clarify some aspects of the visit, then go and have breakfast with my family before logging back on and completing the encounters.

Is most of your interaction with patients asynchronous, messaging back and forth to take history?

A few states require a phone call, so those are synchronous, and every Medicaid patient requires a video call. I do synchronous visits with all of my isotretinoin patients at first. It’s a mixed bag, but a lot of my visits are done entirely asynchronously.

What attracted you to this model?

During residency, I always felt that many of the ways we saw patients seemed extraordinarily inefficient. My best example of this is isotretinoin follow-ups. Before this year, most of my colleagues were uncomfortable with virtual isotretinoin follow-ups or thought it was a ridiculous idea. Frankly, I never shared this sentiment. Once I had my own board certification, I knew I was going to pursue teledermatology, because seeing kids take a half day off of school to come in for a 10-minute isotretinoin appointment (that’s mainly just a conversation about sports) just didn’t make sense to me. So I knew I wanted to pursue this idea, I just didn’t know exactly how. One day I was approached by a close friend and mentor of mine who had just purchased a teledermatology platform. She asked me if I would like to moonlight once I graduated and I jumped at the opportunity.

 

 

What steps did you take prior to graduating to help prepare you to practice teledermatology?

The most important thing I did—and the most important thing I think for third-year residents to do—is to set myself up for success by starting the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) licensure and certification process. Once you have a DEA number, you can apply for Medicare and Medicaid. The nice thing about Medicare is you can start billing immediately after you apply, which is important. The reimbursement isn’t as high, but they pay faster, which allows you to start seeing patients through teledermatology right away. In a pinch, you could see all Medicare patients and make a living until you’ve completed the rest of the process. Once you have a Medicare and Medicaid number, you can apply for credentialing through private payers. However, the Medicare process takes 3 months, and private-payers credentialing takes about 90 days as well. That’s a lot of time! Before finishing residency, I recommend you make sure you have an unrestricted DEA license and you apply for Medicare/Medicaid credentials. Then, when you’re looking at future employment, you can start getting state licenses almost immediately in whatever states you anticipate needing them.

What are the top 3 benefits of incorporating teledermatology into your practice?

Accessibility is one huge benefit. If you’re practicing in a rural area, you’re basically giving [patients] back their time. Teledermatology takes patients much less time, and they get the same level of care. That’s a big selling point. Your patients will be very happy and loyal because of that.

The other thing I never would have foreseen before starting teledermatology is the amazing follow-up you can get. I think many dermatology residents will agree that there are those patients where you think, “Wow, I wish I could see them back. I wonder how they did,” but you never see them again. That’s not the case with teledermatology. I have a running list of all my interesting cases, and I’ll just shoot them a message 2 or 4 weeks later and at their convenience, they can submit a quick photo. I get that excellent feedback, and that’s huge to me for my own personal education and growth.

The third would be experience. I have 24 state medical licenses, and I see patients of all varieties: all socioeconomic backgrounds and skin types and many with severe skin conditions never managed before by a specialist. That, frankly, has increased my comfort level for seeing patients of all types. It forces me to expand my utilization of certain therapies because some people can’t afford 95% of medications we prescribe commonly. I find that challenge very rewarding. It’s something I’m not sure you can achieve by just practicing within your bubble. Inevitably you are going to see a certain type of patient that your hospital or practice attracts by merit of its geography or catchment area. Teledermatology allows you to see the full spectrum of dermatology.

What are the biggest cons to incorporating teledermatology into your practice?

To start off, some patients have boundary issues. Every 200 patients or so, I’ll have someone who submits a visit at 11:30 pm, and then at 1:00 or 2:00 am they’re asking, “Why am I not being seen, what’s going on?” Maintaining patient boundaries becomes exponentially more difficult. In some respects, you are now expected to be available 24/7 because some people have unreasonable expectations. That is one of the most difficult aspects of practicing the way I do.

The second is reimbursement. In other practice models I can bill more in half the time by seeing a patient in person, doing a skin screening and a few biopsies. I believe there’s always a role for teledermatology in any practice, but ultimately dermatologists are pragmatic people who need to be smart about time management. At some point, it becomes difficult to pay the bills if reimbursement is lacking. That’s one of the bigger downsides to teledermatology. We still need to figure out how to reimburse to incentivize what’s best for the patient.

Could you talk more about the effect on work-life balance?

I think the things that make teledermatology appealing are the same things that could end up disrupting your work-life balance. On the positive side, you can vacation in Hawaii, work for 2 hours each morning, and pay for the whole thing. That’s very appealing to me! The downside is that there are always patients in the queue. In some sense, your waiting room is always half-full, 24/7. Mentally, you have to become comfortable with that, and you have to develop boundaries. I have very specific times I do teledermatology and then I log off. This helps me establish boundaries and creates balance.

You touched on it earlier regarding isotretinoin visits, but what other facets of practice do you think are particularly well-suited to teledermatology?

There are a few that I’ve incorporated into my practice quite aggressively. Almost all acne is going to go to a teledermatology visit. That’s in large part due to payer parity. For the most part, you make the same doing an acne visit online as you will doing it in person. Your patients will be getting the same level of care, better follow-up, and you’ll make the same amount of money. Another thing I do as a patient courtesy is wound checks postsurgery or post-Mohs [micrographic surgery]. There is a huge benefit there to seeing your patients because you can identify infections early, answer simple questions, and reduce in-person clinic visits. That’s a win.

What are visit types you feel are not well-suited to teledermatology or that you approach with more caution?

This will be different for everyone to some degree. I think practitioners need to be alert and use their best judgement when approaching any new patient or new concern. Pigmented lesions certainly give me pause. Although the technology is getting better every day, I believe there is still a gap between seeing a photo of a lesion and seeing a pigmented lesion in person, being able to get up close and examine it dermoscopically. Teledermoscopy, however, is an emerging business model as well, and it will be interesting to see what role this can play as it gets incorporated.

You mentioned having medical licenses in several states. Can you describe the process you went through to obtain these licenses?

It’s a painful process. I started realizing this was something I wanted to incorporate after residency, so I started looking into applying for medical licenses early. Teledermatology companies often will reimburse you and help you to get licenses. I was lucky enough to get assistance, which was essential because it is an onerous process. If you can work that into your contract during negotiations that would be ideal. Not everyone will be as lucky as I was, though. If that doesn’t pertain to you, pick a few states that have larger populations around you, where you know that they have a lot of need and start applying there. Be aware that medical licensure takes about 6 months. Having this started around mid–third year is important.

Employers want someone they can use right away, so I found it very beneficial to approach an employer and be able to explain to them tangibly where you are in the process. For example, “I’ve got my DEA license, Medicare, Medicaid number, and I have licensure in your state and all the surrounding states.” You then have a leg to stand on with your negotiating. If you do the legwork and can then negotiate a higher percentage, you’ll make up the licensure fees in a half day of work. It’s an investment toward your professional career.

Any final thoughts?

I think that insurers are very interested in teledermatology because there’s a potential for huge cost savings. As the dust settles with COVID-19 and we see how telemedicine has changed medicine in general, I really think that payers are going to be more aggressive about requiring teledermatology from their dermatologists. I think residents need to anticipate that teledermatology will be some part of their practice in the future and should start planning now to be prepared for this brave new world going forward.

References
  1. Yim KM, Florek AG, Oh DH, et al. Teledermatology in the United States: an update in a dynamic era. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24:691-697.
  2. Shatzkes MM, Borha EL. Permanent expansion of Medicare telehealth services. The National Law Review website. Published December 7, 2020. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/permanent-expansion-medicare-telehealth-services
References
  1. Yim KM, Florek AG, Oh DH, et al. Teledermatology in the United States: an update in a dynamic era. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24:691-697.
  2. Shatzkes MM, Borha EL. Permanent expansion of Medicare telehealth services. The National Law Review website. Published December 7, 2020. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/permanent-expansion-medicare-telehealth-services
Issue
cutis - 107(4)
Issue
cutis - 107(4)
Page Number
E37-E39
Page Number
E37-E39
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Inside the Article

Resident Pearl

  • One result of the COVID-19 pandemic is the aggressive adoption of teledermatology across the United States. Graduating residents should be preparing for a scope of practice that incorporates teledermatology.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
Article PDF Media