Willis H. Lyford, MD

Operational risk management (ORM) refers to the systematic identification and assessment of daily operational risks within an organization designed to mitigate negative financial, reputational, and safety outcomes while maximizing efficiency and achievement of objectives.¹ Operational risk management is indispensable to modern military operations, optimizing mission readiness while minimizing complications and personnel morbidity. Application of ORM in medicine holds considerable promise due to the emphasis on precise and efficient decision-making in high-stakes environments, where the margin for error is minimal. In this article, we propose integrating ORM principles into dermatologic surgery to enhance patient-centered care through improved counseling, risk assessment, and procedural outcomes. 

Principles and Processes of ORM

The ORM framework is built on 4 fundamental principles: accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost, accept no unnecessary risk, anticipate and manage risk by planning, and make risk decisions at the right level.² These principles form the foundation of the ORM’s systematic 5-step approach to identify hazards, assess hazards, make risk decisions, implement controls, and supervise. Key to the ORM process is the use of risk assessment codes and the risk assessment matrix to quantify and prioritize risks. Risk assessment codes are numerical values assigned to hazards based on their assessed severity and probability. The risk assessment matrix is a tool that plots the severity of a hazard against its probability. By locating a hazard on the matrix, users can visualize its risk level in terms of severity and probability. Building and using the risk assessment matrix begins with determining severity by assessing the potential impact of a hazard and categorizing it into levels (catastrophic, critical, moderate, or negligible). Next, probability is determined by evaluating the likelihood of occurrence (frequent, likely, occasional, seldom, or unlikely). Finally, the severity and probability are combined to assign a risk assessment code, which indicates the risk level and helps visualize criticality. Systematically applying these principles and processes enables users to make informed decisions that balance mission objectives with safety.

Proposed Framework for ORM in Dermatology Surgery

Current risk mitigation in dermatologic surgery includes strict medication oversight, sterilization protocols, and photography to prevent wrong-site surgeries. Preoperative risk assessment through conducting a thorough patient history is vital, considering factors such as pregnancy, allergies, bleeding history, cardiac devices, and keloid propensity, all of which impact surgical outcomes.^3-5 After gathering the patient’s history, dermatologists determine appropriateness for surgery and its inherent risks, typically via an informed consent process outlining the diagnosis and procedure purpose as well as a list of risks, benefits, and alternatives, including forgoing treatment.

Importantly, the standard process for dermatologic risk evaluation often lacks a comprehensive systematic approach seen in other higher-risk surgical fields. For example, general surgeons frequently utilize risk assessment calculators such as the one developed by the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to estimate surgical complications.⁶ While specific guidelines exist for evaluating factors such as hypertension or anticoagulant use, no single tool synthesizes all patient risk factors for a unified assessment. Therefore, we propose integrating ORM as a structured decision-making process that offers a more consistent means for dermatologists to evaluate, synthesize, categorize, and present risks to patients. Our proposed process includes translating military mishap severity into a framework that helps patients better understand decisions about their health care when using ORM (eTable 1). The proposed process also provides dermatologists with a systematic, proactive, and iterative approach to assessing risks that allows them to consistently qualify medical decisions (eTable 2).

Patients often struggle to understand surgical risk severity, including overestimating the risks of routine minor procedures or underestimating the risks of more intensive procedures.^7,8 Incorporating ORM into patient communication mirrors the provider’s process but uses patient-friendly terminology—it is discussion based and integrates patient preferences and tolerances (eTable 2). These steps often occur informally in dermatologic counseling; however, an organized structured approach, especially using a visual aid such as a risk assessment matrix, enhances patient comprehension, recall, and satisfaction.⁹

Practical Scenarios 

Integrating ORM into dermatologic surgery is a proactive iterative process for both provider decision-making and patient communication. Leveraging a risk assessment matrix as a visual aid allows for clear identification, evaluation, and mitigation of hazards, fostering collaborative choices with regard to the treatment approach. Here we provide 2 case scenarios highlighting how ORM and the risk assessment matrix can be used in the management of a complex patient with a lesion in a high-risk location as well as to address patient anxiety and comorbidities. It is important to note that the way the matrices are completed in the examples provided may differ compared to other providers. The purpose of ORM is not to dictate risk categories but to serve as a tool for providers to take their own experiences and knowledge of the patient to guide their decision-making and counseling processes. 

Case Scenario 1—An elderly man with a history of diabetes, cardiovascular accident, coronary artery bypass grafting, and multiple squamous cell carcinoma excisions presents for evaluation of a 1-cm squamous cell carcinoma in situ on the left leg. His current medications include an anticoagulant and antihypertensives. 

In this scenario, the provider would apply ORM by identifying and assessing hazards, making risk decisions, implementing controls, and supervising care. 

General hazards for excision on the leg include bleeding, infection, scarring, pain, delayed healing, activity limitations, and possible further procedures. Before the visit, the provider should prepare baseline risk matrices for 2 potential treatment options: wide local excision and electrodessication and curettage. For example, surgical bleeding may be assessed as negligible severity and almost certain probability for a general excision.

Next, the provider would incorporate the patient’s unique history in the risk matrices (eFigures 1 and 2). The patient’s use of an anticoagulant indicates a bleeding risk; therefore, the provider may shift the severity to minimal clinical concern, understanding the need for enhanced perioperative management. The history of diabetes also has a considerable impact on wound healing, so the provider might elevate the probability of delayed wound healing from rare to unlikely and the severity from moderate to severe. The prior cardiovascular accident also raises concerns about mobility and activity limitations during recovery, which could be escalated from minimal to moderate clinical concern if postoperative limitations on ambulation increase the risk for new clots. Based on this internal assessment, the provider identifies which risks are elevated and require further attention and discussion with the patient, helping tailor the counseling approach and potential treatment plan. The provider should begin to consider initial control measures such as coordinating anticoagulant management, ensuring diabetes is well controlled, and planning for postoperative ambulation support.

Once the provider has conducted the internal assessment, the ORM matrices become powerful tools for shared decision-making with the patient. The provider can walk the patient through the procedures and their common risks and then explain how their individual situation modifies the risks. The visual and explicit upgrade on the matrices allows the patient to clearly see how unique factors influence their personal risk profile, moving beyond a generic list of complications. The provider then should engage the patient in a discussion about their risk tolerance, which is crucial for mutual agreement on whether to proceed with treatment and, if so, which procedure is most appropriate given the patient’s comfort level with their individualized risk profile. Then the provider should reinforce the proactive steps planned to mitigate the identified risks to provide assurance and reinforce the collaborative approach to safety. 

Finally, throughout the preoperative and postoperative phases, the provider should continuously monitor the patient’s condition and the effectiveness of the control measures, adjusting the plan as needed. 

In this scenario, both the provider and the patient participated in the risk assessment, with the provider completing the assessment before the visit and presenting it to the patient or performing the assessment in real time with the patient present to explain the reasoning behind assignment of risk based on each procedure and the patient’s unique risk factors. 

Case Scenario 2—A 38-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and procedural anxiety presents for evaluation of a biopsy-proven basal cell carcinoma on the nasal ala. The patient is taking diltiazem for hypertension and is compliant with her medication. Her blood pressure at the current visit is 148/96 mm Hg, which she attributes to white coat syndrome. Mohs micrographic surgery generally is the gold standard treatment for this case.

The provider’s ORM process, conducted either before or in real time during the visit, would begin with identification and assessment of the hazards. For Mohs surgery on the nasal ala, common hazards would include scarring, pain, infection, bleeding, and potential cosmetic distortion. Unique to this patient are the procedural anxiety and hypertension. 

To populate the risk assessment matrix (eFigure 3), the provider would first map the baseline risks of Mohs surgery, which include considerable scarring as a moderate clinical concern but a seldom probability. Because the patient’s procedural anxiety directly increases the probability of intraoperative distress or elevated blood pressure during the procedure, the provider might assess patient distress/anxiety as a moderate clinical concern with a likely probability. While the patient’s blood pressure is controlled, the white coat syndrome raises the probability of hypertensive urgency/emergency during surgery; this might be elevated from unlikely to occasional or likely probability, and severity might increase from minimal to moderate due to its potential impact on procedural safety. The provider should consider strategies to address these elevated risks during the consultation. Then, as part of preprocedure planning, the provider should consider discussing anxiolytics, emphasizing medication compliance, and ensuring a calm environment for the patient’s surgery.

For this patient, the risk assessment matrix becomes a powerful tool to address fears and proactively manage her unique risk factors. To start the counseling process, the provider should explain the procedure, its benefits, and potential adverse effects. Then, the patient’s individualized risks can be visualized using the matrix, which also is an opportunity for reassurance, as it can alleviate patient fears by contextualizing rare but impactful outcomes.⁹

Now the provider can assess the patient’s risk tolerance. This discussion ensures that the patient’s comfort level and preferences are central to the treatment decision, even for a gold-standard procedure such as Mohs surgery. By listening and responding to the patient’s input, the provider can build trust and discuss strategies that can help control for some risk factors.

Finally, the provider would re-evaluate throughout the procedure by continuously monitoring the patient’s anxiety and vital signs. The provider should also be ready to adjust pain management or employ anxiety-reduction techniques.

Final Thoughts

Reviewing the risk assessment matrix can be an effective way to nonjudgmentally discuss a patient’s unique risk factors and provide a complete understanding of the planned treatment or procedure. It conveys to the patient that, as the provider, you are taking their health seriously when considering treatment options and can be a means to build patient rapport and trust. This approach mirrors risk communication strategies long employed in military operational planning, where transparency and structured risk evaluation are essential to maintaining mission readiness and unit cohesion.

Operational risk management (ORM) refers to the systematic identification and assessment of daily operational risks within an organization designed to mitigate negative financial, reputational, and safety outcomes while maximizing efficiency and achievement of objectives.¹ Operational risk management is indispensable to modern military operations, optimizing mission readiness while minimizing complications and personnel morbidity. Application of ORM in medicine holds considerable promise due to the emphasis on precise and efficient decision-making in high-stakes environments, where the margin for error is minimal. In this article, we propose integrating ORM principles into dermatologic surgery to enhance patient-centered care through improved counseling, risk assessment, and procedural outcomes. 

Principles and Processes of ORM

The ORM framework is built on 4 fundamental principles: accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost, accept no unnecessary risk, anticipate and manage risk by planning, and make risk decisions at the right level.² These principles form the foundation of the ORM’s systematic 5-step approach to identify hazards, assess hazards, make risk decisions, implement controls, and supervise. Key to the ORM process is the use of risk assessment codes and the risk assessment matrix to quantify and prioritize risks. Risk assessment codes are numerical values assigned to hazards based on their assessed severity and probability. The risk assessment matrix is a tool that plots the severity of a hazard against its probability. By locating a hazard on the matrix, users can visualize its risk level in terms of severity and probability. Building and using the risk assessment matrix begins with determining severity by assessing the potential impact of a hazard and categorizing it into levels (catastrophic, critical, moderate, or negligible). Next, probability is determined by evaluating the likelihood of occurrence (frequent, likely, occasional, seldom, or unlikely). Finally, the severity and probability are combined to assign a risk assessment code, which indicates the risk level and helps visualize criticality. Systematically applying these principles and processes enables users to make informed decisions that balance mission objectives with safety.

Proposed Framework for ORM in Dermatology Surgery

Current risk mitigation in dermatologic surgery includes strict medication oversight, sterilization protocols, and photography to prevent wrong-site surgeries. Preoperative risk assessment through conducting a thorough patient history is vital, considering factors such as pregnancy, allergies, bleeding history, cardiac devices, and keloid propensity, all of which impact surgical outcomes.^3-5 After gathering the patient’s history, dermatologists determine appropriateness for surgery and its inherent risks, typically via an informed consent process outlining the diagnosis and procedure purpose as well as a list of risks, benefits, and alternatives, including forgoing treatment.

Importantly, the standard process for dermatologic risk evaluation often lacks a comprehensive systematic approach seen in other higher-risk surgical fields. For example, general surgeons frequently utilize risk assessment calculators such as the one developed by the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to estimate surgical complications.⁶ While specific guidelines exist for evaluating factors such as hypertension or anticoagulant use, no single tool synthesizes all patient risk factors for a unified assessment. Therefore, we propose integrating ORM as a structured decision-making process that offers a more consistent means for dermatologists to evaluate, synthesize, categorize, and present risks to patients. Our proposed process includes translating military mishap severity into a framework that helps patients better understand decisions about their health care when using ORM (eTable 1). The proposed process also provides dermatologists with a systematic, proactive, and iterative approach to assessing risks that allows them to consistently qualify medical decisions (eTable 2).

Patients often struggle to understand surgical risk severity, including overestimating the risks of routine minor procedures or underestimating the risks of more intensive procedures.^7,8 Incorporating ORM into patient communication mirrors the provider’s process but uses patient-friendly terminology—it is discussion based and integrates patient preferences and tolerances (eTable 2). These steps often occur informally in dermatologic counseling; however, an organized structured approach, especially using a visual aid such as a risk assessment matrix, enhances patient comprehension, recall, and satisfaction.⁹

Practical Scenarios 

Integrating ORM into dermatologic surgery is a proactive iterative process for both provider decision-making and patient communication. Leveraging a risk assessment matrix as a visual aid allows for clear identification, evaluation, and mitigation of hazards, fostering collaborative choices with regard to the treatment approach. Here we provide 2 case scenarios highlighting how ORM and the risk assessment matrix can be used in the management of a complex patient with a lesion in a high-risk location as well as to address patient anxiety and comorbidities. It is important to note that the way the matrices are completed in the examples provided may differ compared to other providers. The purpose of ORM is not to dictate risk categories but to serve as a tool for providers to take their own experiences and knowledge of the patient to guide their decision-making and counseling processes. 

Case Scenario 1—An elderly man with a history of diabetes, cardiovascular accident, coronary artery bypass grafting, and multiple squamous cell carcinoma excisions presents for evaluation of a 1-cm squamous cell carcinoma in situ on the left leg. His current medications include an anticoagulant and antihypertensives. 

In this scenario, the provider would apply ORM by identifying and assessing hazards, making risk decisions, implementing controls, and supervising care. 

General hazards for excision on the leg include bleeding, infection, scarring, pain, delayed healing, activity limitations, and possible further procedures. Before the visit, the provider should prepare baseline risk matrices for 2 potential treatment options: wide local excision and electrodessication and curettage. For example, surgical bleeding may be assessed as negligible severity and almost certain probability for a general excision.

Next, the provider would incorporate the patient’s unique history in the risk matrices (eFigures 1 and 2). The patient’s use of an anticoagulant indicates a bleeding risk; therefore, the provider may shift the severity to minimal clinical concern, understanding the need for enhanced perioperative management. The history of diabetes also has a considerable impact on wound healing, so the provider might elevate the probability of delayed wound healing from rare to unlikely and the severity from moderate to severe. The prior cardiovascular accident also raises concerns about mobility and activity limitations during recovery, which could be escalated from minimal to moderate clinical concern if postoperative limitations on ambulation increase the risk for new clots. Based on this internal assessment, the provider identifies which risks are elevated and require further attention and discussion with the patient, helping tailor the counseling approach and potential treatment plan. The provider should begin to consider initial control measures such as coordinating anticoagulant management, ensuring diabetes is well controlled, and planning for postoperative ambulation support.

Once the provider has conducted the internal assessment, the ORM matrices become powerful tools for shared decision-making with the patient. The provider can walk the patient through the procedures and their common risks and then explain how their individual situation modifies the risks. The visual and explicit upgrade on the matrices allows the patient to clearly see how unique factors influence their personal risk profile, moving beyond a generic list of complications. The provider then should engage the patient in a discussion about their risk tolerance, which is crucial for mutual agreement on whether to proceed with treatment and, if so, which procedure is most appropriate given the patient’s comfort level with their individualized risk profile. Then the provider should reinforce the proactive steps planned to mitigate the identified risks to provide assurance and reinforce the collaborative approach to safety. 

Finally, throughout the preoperative and postoperative phases, the provider should continuously monitor the patient’s condition and the effectiveness of the control measures, adjusting the plan as needed. 

In this scenario, both the provider and the patient participated in the risk assessment, with the provider completing the assessment before the visit and presenting it to the patient or performing the assessment in real time with the patient present to explain the reasoning behind assignment of risk based on each procedure and the patient’s unique risk factors. 

Case Scenario 2—A 38-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and procedural anxiety presents for evaluation of a biopsy-proven basal cell carcinoma on the nasal ala. The patient is taking diltiazem for hypertension and is compliant with her medication. Her blood pressure at the current visit is 148/96 mm Hg, which she attributes to white coat syndrome. Mohs micrographic surgery generally is the gold standard treatment for this case.

The provider’s ORM process, conducted either before or in real time during the visit, would begin with identification and assessment of the hazards. For Mohs surgery on the nasal ala, common hazards would include scarring, pain, infection, bleeding, and potential cosmetic distortion. Unique to this patient are the procedural anxiety and hypertension. 

To populate the risk assessment matrix (eFigure 3), the provider would first map the baseline risks of Mohs surgery, which include considerable scarring as a moderate clinical concern but a seldom probability. Because the patient’s procedural anxiety directly increases the probability of intraoperative distress or elevated blood pressure during the procedure, the provider might assess patient distress/anxiety as a moderate clinical concern with a likely probability. While the patient’s blood pressure is controlled, the white coat syndrome raises the probability of hypertensive urgency/emergency during surgery; this might be elevated from unlikely to occasional or likely probability, and severity might increase from minimal to moderate due to its potential impact on procedural safety. The provider should consider strategies to address these elevated risks during the consultation. Then, as part of preprocedure planning, the provider should consider discussing anxiolytics, emphasizing medication compliance, and ensuring a calm environment for the patient’s surgery.

For this patient, the risk assessment matrix becomes a powerful tool to address fears and proactively manage her unique risk factors. To start the counseling process, the provider should explain the procedure, its benefits, and potential adverse effects. Then, the patient’s individualized risks can be visualized using the matrix, which also is an opportunity for reassurance, as it can alleviate patient fears by contextualizing rare but impactful outcomes.⁹

Now the provider can assess the patient’s risk tolerance. This discussion ensures that the patient’s comfort level and preferences are central to the treatment decision, even for a gold-standard procedure such as Mohs surgery. By listening and responding to the patient’s input, the provider can build trust and discuss strategies that can help control for some risk factors.

Finally, the provider would re-evaluate throughout the procedure by continuously monitoring the patient’s anxiety and vital signs. The provider should also be ready to adjust pain management or employ anxiety-reduction techniques.

Final Thoughts

Reviewing the risk assessment matrix can be an effective way to nonjudgmentally discuss a patient’s unique risk factors and provide a complete understanding of the planned treatment or procedure. It conveys to the patient that, as the provider, you are taking their health seriously when considering treatment options and can be a means to build patient rapport and trust. This approach mirrors risk communication strategies long employed in military operational planning, where transparency and structured risk evaluation are essential to maintaining mission readiness and unit cohesion.

Operational risk management (ORM) refers to the systematic identification and assessment of daily operational risks within an organization designed to mitigate negative financial, reputational, and safety outcomes while maximizing efficiency and achievement of objectives.¹ Operational risk management is indispensable to modern military operations, optimizing mission readiness while minimizing complications and personnel morbidity. Application of ORM in medicine holds considerable promise due to the emphasis on precise and efficient decision-making in high-stakes environments, where the margin for error is minimal. In this article, we propose integrating ORM principles into dermatologic surgery to enhance patient-centered care through improved counseling, risk assessment, and procedural outcomes. 

Principles and Processes of ORM

The ORM framework is built on 4 fundamental principles: accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost, accept no unnecessary risk, anticipate and manage risk by planning, and make risk decisions at the right level.² These principles form the foundation of the ORM’s systematic 5-step approach to identify hazards, assess hazards, make risk decisions, implement controls, and supervise. Key to the ORM process is the use of risk assessment codes and the risk assessment matrix to quantify and prioritize risks. Risk assessment codes are numerical values assigned to hazards based on their assessed severity and probability. The risk assessment matrix is a tool that plots the severity of a hazard against its probability. By locating a hazard on the matrix, users can visualize its risk level in terms of severity and probability. Building and using the risk assessment matrix begins with determining severity by assessing the potential impact of a hazard and categorizing it into levels (catastrophic, critical, moderate, or negligible). Next, probability is determined by evaluating the likelihood of occurrence (frequent, likely, occasional, seldom, or unlikely). Finally, the severity and probability are combined to assign a risk assessment code, which indicates the risk level and helps visualize criticality. Systematically applying these principles and processes enables users to make informed decisions that balance mission objectives with safety.

Proposed Framework for ORM in Dermatology Surgery

Current risk mitigation in dermatologic surgery includes strict medication oversight, sterilization protocols, and photography to prevent wrong-site surgeries. Preoperative risk assessment through conducting a thorough patient history is vital, considering factors such as pregnancy, allergies, bleeding history, cardiac devices, and keloid propensity, all of which impact surgical outcomes.^3-5 After gathering the patient’s history, dermatologists determine appropriateness for surgery and its inherent risks, typically via an informed consent process outlining the diagnosis and procedure purpose as well as a list of risks, benefits, and alternatives, including forgoing treatment.

Importantly, the standard process for dermatologic risk evaluation often lacks a comprehensive systematic approach seen in other higher-risk surgical fields. For example, general surgeons frequently utilize risk assessment calculators such as the one developed by the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to estimate surgical complications.⁶ While specific guidelines exist for evaluating factors such as hypertension or anticoagulant use, no single tool synthesizes all patient risk factors for a unified assessment. Therefore, we propose integrating ORM as a structured decision-making process that offers a more consistent means for dermatologists to evaluate, synthesize, categorize, and present risks to patients. Our proposed process includes translating military mishap severity into a framework that helps patients better understand decisions about their health care when using ORM (eTable 1). The proposed process also provides dermatologists with a systematic, proactive, and iterative approach to assessing risks that allows them to consistently qualify medical decisions (eTable 2).

Patients often struggle to understand surgical risk severity, including overestimating the risks of routine minor procedures or underestimating the risks of more intensive procedures.^7,8 Incorporating ORM into patient communication mirrors the provider’s process but uses patient-friendly terminology—it is discussion based and integrates patient preferences and tolerances (eTable 2). These steps often occur informally in dermatologic counseling; however, an organized structured approach, especially using a visual aid such as a risk assessment matrix, enhances patient comprehension, recall, and satisfaction.⁹

Practical Scenarios 

Integrating ORM into dermatologic surgery is a proactive iterative process for both provider decision-making and patient communication. Leveraging a risk assessment matrix as a visual aid allows for clear identification, evaluation, and mitigation of hazards, fostering collaborative choices with regard to the treatment approach. Here we provide 2 case scenarios highlighting how ORM and the risk assessment matrix can be used in the management of a complex patient with a lesion in a high-risk location as well as to address patient anxiety and comorbidities. It is important to note that the way the matrices are completed in the examples provided may differ compared to other providers. The purpose of ORM is not to dictate risk categories but to serve as a tool for providers to take their own experiences and knowledge of the patient to guide their decision-making and counseling processes. 

Case Scenario 1—An elderly man with a history of diabetes, cardiovascular accident, coronary artery bypass grafting, and multiple squamous cell carcinoma excisions presents for evaluation of a 1-cm squamous cell carcinoma in situ on the left leg. His current medications include an anticoagulant and antihypertensives. 

In this scenario, the provider would apply ORM by identifying and assessing hazards, making risk decisions, implementing controls, and supervising care. 

General hazards for excision on the leg include bleeding, infection, scarring, pain, delayed healing, activity limitations, and possible further procedures. Before the visit, the provider should prepare baseline risk matrices for 2 potential treatment options: wide local excision and electrodessication and curettage. For example, surgical bleeding may be assessed as negligible severity and almost certain probability for a general excision.

Next, the provider would incorporate the patient’s unique history in the risk matrices (eFigures 1 and 2). The patient’s use of an anticoagulant indicates a bleeding risk; therefore, the provider may shift the severity to minimal clinical concern, understanding the need for enhanced perioperative management. The history of diabetes also has a considerable impact on wound healing, so the provider might elevate the probability of delayed wound healing from rare to unlikely and the severity from moderate to severe. The prior cardiovascular accident also raises concerns about mobility and activity limitations during recovery, which could be escalated from minimal to moderate clinical concern if postoperative limitations on ambulation increase the risk for new clots. Based on this internal assessment, the provider identifies which risks are elevated and require further attention and discussion with the patient, helping tailor the counseling approach and potential treatment plan. The provider should begin to consider initial control measures such as coordinating anticoagulant management, ensuring diabetes is well controlled, and planning for postoperative ambulation support.

Once the provider has conducted the internal assessment, the ORM matrices become powerful tools for shared decision-making with the patient. The provider can walk the patient through the procedures and their common risks and then explain how their individual situation modifies the risks. The visual and explicit upgrade on the matrices allows the patient to clearly see how unique factors influence their personal risk profile, moving beyond a generic list of complications. The provider then should engage the patient in a discussion about their risk tolerance, which is crucial for mutual agreement on whether to proceed with treatment and, if so, which procedure is most appropriate given the patient’s comfort level with their individualized risk profile. Then the provider should reinforce the proactive steps planned to mitigate the identified risks to provide assurance and reinforce the collaborative approach to safety. 

Finally, throughout the preoperative and postoperative phases, the provider should continuously monitor the patient’s condition and the effectiveness of the control measures, adjusting the plan as needed. 

In this scenario, both the provider and the patient participated in the risk assessment, with the provider completing the assessment before the visit and presenting it to the patient or performing the assessment in real time with the patient present to explain the reasoning behind assignment of risk based on each procedure and the patient’s unique risk factors. 

Case Scenario 2—A 38-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and procedural anxiety presents for evaluation of a biopsy-proven basal cell carcinoma on the nasal ala. The patient is taking diltiazem for hypertension and is compliant with her medication. Her blood pressure at the current visit is 148/96 mm Hg, which she attributes to white coat syndrome. Mohs micrographic surgery generally is the gold standard treatment for this case.

The provider’s ORM process, conducted either before or in real time during the visit, would begin with identification and assessment of the hazards. For Mohs surgery on the nasal ala, common hazards would include scarring, pain, infection, bleeding, and potential cosmetic distortion. Unique to this patient are the procedural anxiety and hypertension. 

To populate the risk assessment matrix (eFigure 3), the provider would first map the baseline risks of Mohs surgery, which include considerable scarring as a moderate clinical concern but a seldom probability. Because the patient’s procedural anxiety directly increases the probability of intraoperative distress or elevated blood pressure during the procedure, the provider might assess patient distress/anxiety as a moderate clinical concern with a likely probability. While the patient’s blood pressure is controlled, the white coat syndrome raises the probability of hypertensive urgency/emergency during surgery; this might be elevated from unlikely to occasional or likely probability, and severity might increase from minimal to moderate due to its potential impact on procedural safety. The provider should consider strategies to address these elevated risks during the consultation. Then, as part of preprocedure planning, the provider should consider discussing anxiolytics, emphasizing medication compliance, and ensuring a calm environment for the patient’s surgery.

For this patient, the risk assessment matrix becomes a powerful tool to address fears and proactively manage her unique risk factors. To start the counseling process, the provider should explain the procedure, its benefits, and potential adverse effects. Then, the patient’s individualized risks can be visualized using the matrix, which also is an opportunity for reassurance, as it can alleviate patient fears by contextualizing rare but impactful outcomes.⁹

Now the provider can assess the patient’s risk tolerance. This discussion ensures that the patient’s comfort level and preferences are central to the treatment decision, even for a gold-standard procedure such as Mohs surgery. By listening and responding to the patient’s input, the provider can build trust and discuss strategies that can help control for some risk factors.

Finally, the provider would re-evaluate throughout the procedure by continuously monitoring the patient’s anxiety and vital signs. The provider should also be ready to adjust pain management or employ anxiety-reduction techniques.

Final Thoughts

Reviewing the risk assessment matrix can be an effective way to nonjudgmentally discuss a patient’s unique risk factors and provide a complete understanding of the planned treatment or procedure. It conveys to the patient that, as the provider, you are taking their health seriously when considering treatment options and can be a means to build patient rapport and trust. This approach mirrors risk communication strategies long employed in military operational planning, where transparency and structured risk evaluation are essential to maintaining mission readiness and unit cohesion.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Villar Nodule

The biopsy revealed features consistent with cutaneous endometriosis in the setting of a painful, tender, multilobulated nodule with a cyclical bleeding pattern (Figure 1). The bleeding pattern of the nodule during menses and lack of surgical history supported the diagnosis of primary cutaneous endometriosis in our patient. She was diagnosed with endometriosis by gynecology, and her primary care physician started her on an oral contraceptive based on this diagnosis. She also was referred to gynecology and plastic surgery for a joint surgical consultation to remove the nodule. She initially decided to do a trial of the oral contraceptive but subsequently underwent umbilical endometrioma excision with neo-umbilicus creation with no evidence of recurrence.

Primary cutaneous endometriosis should be considered in young females who present with tender umbilical nodules. Endometriosis refers to the presence of an endometriumlike epithelium outside the endometrium and myometrium.¹ The condition affects 10% to 15% of reproductive-aged (ie, 18-49 years) women in the United States and typically involves tissues within the pelvis, such as the ovaries, pouch of Douglas, or pelvic ligaments.² Cutaneous endometriosis is the growth of endometrial tissue in the skin and is rare, accounting for less than 5.5% of cases of extrapelvic endometriosis worldwide, affecting primarily the umbilicus, abdominal wall, and vulva.^3,4

The 2 main types of cutaneous endometriosis are primary (spontaneous) and secondary. Primary lesions develop in patients without prior surgical history, and secondary lesions occur within previous surgical incision sites, often scars from cesarean delivery.⁵ Less than 30% of cases of cutaneous endometriosis are primary disease.⁶ Primary cutaneous endometriosis of the umbilicus, known as Villar nodule, was first described in 1886.^3,7 Up to 40% of patients with extrapelvic endometriosis worldwide presented with Villar nodules in a systematic literature review.⁶ The prevalence of these nodules is unknown, but the incidence is less than 1% of cases of extragenital endometriosis.⁴

There are 2 leading theories of primary cutaneous endometriosis pathogenesis. The first is the transportation theory, in which endometrial cells are transported outside the uterus via the lymphatic system.⁸ The second is the metaplasia theory, which proposed that endometrial cells develop in the coelomic mesothelium in the presence of high estrogen levels.^8,9

Secondary cutaneous endometriosis, also known as scar endometriosis, is suspected to be caused by an iatrogenic implantation of endometrial cells at the scar of a prior surgical site.⁹ Although our patient had an existing umbilicus scar from a piercing, it was improbable for that to have been the nidus, as the keloid scar was superficial and did not have contact with the abdominal cavity for iatrogenic implantation. Clinical diagnosis for secondary cutaneous endometriosis often is made based on a triad of features: a nonmalignant abdominal mass, recurring pain and bleeding of the lesion with menses, and prior history of abdominal surgery.^9,10 On clinical examination, these features typically manifest as a palpable subcutaneous mass that is black, blue, brown, or red. Often, the lesions enlarge and bleed during the menstrual cycle, causing pain, tenderness, or pruritus.³ Dermoscopic features of secondary cutaneous endometriosis are erythematous umbilical nodules with a homogeneous vascular pattern that appears red with a brownish hue (Figure 2).^9,11 Dermoscopic features may vary with the hormone cycle; for example, the follicular phase (correlating with day 7 of menses) demonstrates polypoid projections, erythematous violaceous color, dark-brown spots, and active bleeding of the lesion.¹² Clinical and dermoscopic examination are useful tools in this diagnosis.

Imaging such as ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in identifying abdominal endometriomas.^8,13,14 Pelvic involvement of endometriosis was found in approximately 15% of patients in a case series,⁴ with concurrent primary umbilical endometriosis. Imaging studies may assist evaluation for fistula formation, presence of malignancies, and the extent of endometriosis within the abdominal cavity.

Histopathology is key to confirming cutaneous endometriosis and shows multiple bland-appearing glands of varying sizes with loose, concentric, edematous, or fibromyxoid stroma (Figure 1).³ Red blood cells sometimes are found with hemosiderin within the stroma. Immunohistochemical staining with estrogen receptors may aid in identifying the endometriumlike epithelial cells.¹³

Standard treatment involves surgical excision with 1-cm margins and umbilical preservation, which results in a recurrence rate of less than 10%.^4,10 Medical therapy, such as aromatase inhibitors, progestogens, antiprogestogens, combined oral contraceptives, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists may help manage pain or reduce the size of the nodule.^4,15 Simple observation also is a potential course for patients who decline treatment options.

Differential diagnoses include lobular capillary hemangioma, also known as pyogenic granuloma; Sister Mary Joseph nodule; umbilical hernia; and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Lobular capillary hemangiomas commonly are acquired benign vascular proliferations of the skin that are friable and tend to ulcerate.¹⁶ These lesions typically grow rapidly and often are located on the face, lips, mucosae, and fingers. Histopathologic examination may show an exophytic lesion with lobules of proliferating capillaries within an edematous matrix, superficial ulceration, and an epithelial collarette.¹⁷ Treatment includes surgical excision, cauterization, laser treatments, sclerotherapy, injectable medications, and topical medications, but recurrence is possible with any of these interventions.¹⁸

Cutaneous metastasis of an internal solid organ cancer, commonly known as a Sister Mary Joseph nodule, typically manifests as an erythematous, irregularly shaped nodule that may protrude from the umbilicus.¹⁴ Gastrointestinal symptoms such as change in bowel habits or obstructive symptoms in the setting of a progressive malignancy are common.¹⁴ Clinical features include a firm fixed lesion, oozing, and ulceration.¹⁹ On dermoscopy, polymorphous vascular patterns, milky red structureless areas, and white lines typically are present.¹¹ Although dermoscopic features may differentiate this entity from cutaneous endometriosis, tissue sampling and histologic examination are crucial diagnostic tools to identify malignant vs benign lesions.

An umbilical hernia is a protrusion of omentum, bowel, or other intra-abdominal organs in an abdominal wall defect. Clinical presentation includes a soft protrusion that may be reduced on palpation if nonstrangulated.²⁰ Treatment includes watchful waiting or surgical repair. The reducibility and presence of an abdominal wall defect may point to this diagnosis. Imaging also may aid in the diagnosis if the history and physical examination are unclear.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is a slow-developing, low- to intermediate-grade, soft-tissue sarcoma that occurs in less than 0.1% of all cancers in the United States.²¹ Lesions often manifest as small, firm, slow-growing, painless, flesh-colored dermal plaques; subcutaneous thickening; or atrophic nonprotuberant lesions typically involving the trunk.²¹ Histopathologically, they are composed of uniform spindle-cell proliferation growing in a storiform pattern and subcutaneous fat trapping that has strong and diffuse CD34 immunoreactivity.^21,22 Pathologic examination typically distinguishes this diagnosis from cutaneous endometriosis. Treatment includes tumor resection that may or may not involve radiotherapy and targeted therapy, as recurrence and metastases are possible.

Primary cutaneous endometriosis is a rare but important diagnosis for dermatologists to consider when evaluating umbilical nodules. Clinical features may include bleeding masses during menses in females of reproductive age. Dermoscopic examination aids in workup, and histopathologic testing can confirm the diagnosis and rule out malignancies. Surgical excision is the treatment of choice with a low rate of recurrence.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Villar Nodule

The biopsy revealed features consistent with cutaneous endometriosis in the setting of a painful, tender, multilobulated nodule with a cyclical bleeding pattern (Figure 1). The bleeding pattern of the nodule during menses and lack of surgical history supported the diagnosis of primary cutaneous endometriosis in our patient. She was diagnosed with endometriosis by gynecology, and her primary care physician started her on an oral contraceptive based on this diagnosis. She also was referred to gynecology and plastic surgery for a joint surgical consultation to remove the nodule. She initially decided to do a trial of the oral contraceptive but subsequently underwent umbilical endometrioma excision with neo-umbilicus creation with no evidence of recurrence.

Primary cutaneous endometriosis should be considered in young females who present with tender umbilical nodules. Endometriosis refers to the presence of an endometriumlike epithelium outside the endometrium and myometrium.¹ The condition affects 10% to 15% of reproductive-aged (ie, 18-49 years) women in the United States and typically involves tissues within the pelvis, such as the ovaries, pouch of Douglas, or pelvic ligaments.² Cutaneous endometriosis is the growth of endometrial tissue in the skin and is rare, accounting for less than 5.5% of cases of extrapelvic endometriosis worldwide, affecting primarily the umbilicus, abdominal wall, and vulva.^3,4

The 2 main types of cutaneous endometriosis are primary (spontaneous) and secondary. Primary lesions develop in patients without prior surgical history, and secondary lesions occur within previous surgical incision sites, often scars from cesarean delivery.⁵ Less than 30% of cases of cutaneous endometriosis are primary disease.⁶ Primary cutaneous endometriosis of the umbilicus, known as Villar nodule, was first described in 1886.^3,7 Up to 40% of patients with extrapelvic endometriosis worldwide presented with Villar nodules in a systematic literature review.⁶ The prevalence of these nodules is unknown, but the incidence is less than 1% of cases of extragenital endometriosis.⁴

There are 2 leading theories of primary cutaneous endometriosis pathogenesis. The first is the transportation theory, in which endometrial cells are transported outside the uterus via the lymphatic system.⁸ The second is the metaplasia theory, which proposed that endometrial cells develop in the coelomic mesothelium in the presence of high estrogen levels.^8,9

Secondary cutaneous endometriosis, also known as scar endometriosis, is suspected to be caused by an iatrogenic implantation of endometrial cells at the scar of a prior surgical site.⁹ Although our patient had an existing umbilicus scar from a piercing, it was improbable for that to have been the nidus, as the keloid scar was superficial and did not have contact with the abdominal cavity for iatrogenic implantation. Clinical diagnosis for secondary cutaneous endometriosis often is made based on a triad of features: a nonmalignant abdominal mass, recurring pain and bleeding of the lesion with menses, and prior history of abdominal surgery.^9,10 On clinical examination, these features typically manifest as a palpable subcutaneous mass that is black, blue, brown, or red. Often, the lesions enlarge and bleed during the menstrual cycle, causing pain, tenderness, or pruritus.³ Dermoscopic features of secondary cutaneous endometriosis are erythematous umbilical nodules with a homogeneous vascular pattern that appears red with a brownish hue (Figure 2).^9,11 Dermoscopic features may vary with the hormone cycle; for example, the follicular phase (correlating with day 7 of menses) demonstrates polypoid projections, erythematous violaceous color, dark-brown spots, and active bleeding of the lesion.¹² Clinical and dermoscopic examination are useful tools in this diagnosis.

Imaging such as ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in identifying abdominal endometriomas.^8,13,14 Pelvic involvement of endometriosis was found in approximately 15% of patients in a case series,⁴ with concurrent primary umbilical endometriosis. Imaging studies may assist evaluation for fistula formation, presence of malignancies, and the extent of endometriosis within the abdominal cavity.

Histopathology is key to confirming cutaneous endometriosis and shows multiple bland-appearing glands of varying sizes with loose, concentric, edematous, or fibromyxoid stroma (Figure 1).³ Red blood cells sometimes are found with hemosiderin within the stroma. Immunohistochemical staining with estrogen receptors may aid in identifying the endometriumlike epithelial cells.¹³

Standard treatment involves surgical excision with 1-cm margins and umbilical preservation, which results in a recurrence rate of less than 10%.^4,10 Medical therapy, such as aromatase inhibitors, progestogens, antiprogestogens, combined oral contraceptives, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists may help manage pain or reduce the size of the nodule.^4,15 Simple observation also is a potential course for patients who decline treatment options.

Differential diagnoses include lobular capillary hemangioma, also known as pyogenic granuloma; Sister Mary Joseph nodule; umbilical hernia; and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Lobular capillary hemangiomas commonly are acquired benign vascular proliferations of the skin that are friable and tend to ulcerate.¹⁶ These lesions typically grow rapidly and often are located on the face, lips, mucosae, and fingers. Histopathologic examination may show an exophytic lesion with lobules of proliferating capillaries within an edematous matrix, superficial ulceration, and an epithelial collarette.¹⁷ Treatment includes surgical excision, cauterization, laser treatments, sclerotherapy, injectable medications, and topical medications, but recurrence is possible with any of these interventions.¹⁸

Cutaneous metastasis of an internal solid organ cancer, commonly known as a Sister Mary Joseph nodule, typically manifests as an erythematous, irregularly shaped nodule that may protrude from the umbilicus.¹⁴ Gastrointestinal symptoms such as change in bowel habits or obstructive symptoms in the setting of a progressive malignancy are common.¹⁴ Clinical features include a firm fixed lesion, oozing, and ulceration.¹⁹ On dermoscopy, polymorphous vascular patterns, milky red structureless areas, and white lines typically are present.¹¹ Although dermoscopic features may differentiate this entity from cutaneous endometriosis, tissue sampling and histologic examination are crucial diagnostic tools to identify malignant vs benign lesions.

An umbilical hernia is a protrusion of omentum, bowel, or other intra-abdominal organs in an abdominal wall defect. Clinical presentation includes a soft protrusion that may be reduced on palpation if nonstrangulated.²⁰ Treatment includes watchful waiting or surgical repair. The reducibility and presence of an abdominal wall defect may point to this diagnosis. Imaging also may aid in the diagnosis if the history and physical examination are unclear.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is a slow-developing, low- to intermediate-grade, soft-tissue sarcoma that occurs in less than 0.1% of all cancers in the United States.²¹ Lesions often manifest as small, firm, slow-growing, painless, flesh-colored dermal plaques; subcutaneous thickening; or atrophic nonprotuberant lesions typically involving the trunk.²¹ Histopathologically, they are composed of uniform spindle-cell proliferation growing in a storiform pattern and subcutaneous fat trapping that has strong and diffuse CD34 immunoreactivity.^21,22 Pathologic examination typically distinguishes this diagnosis from cutaneous endometriosis. Treatment includes tumor resection that may or may not involve radiotherapy and targeted therapy, as recurrence and metastases are possible.

Primary cutaneous endometriosis is a rare but important diagnosis for dermatologists to consider when evaluating umbilical nodules. Clinical features may include bleeding masses during menses in females of reproductive age. Dermoscopic examination aids in workup, and histopathologic testing can confirm the diagnosis and rule out malignancies. Surgical excision is the treatment of choice with a low rate of recurrence.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Villar Nodule

The biopsy revealed features consistent with cutaneous endometriosis in the setting of a painful, tender, multilobulated nodule with a cyclical bleeding pattern (Figure 1). The bleeding pattern of the nodule during menses and lack of surgical history supported the diagnosis of primary cutaneous endometriosis in our patient. She was diagnosed with endometriosis by gynecology, and her primary care physician started her on an oral contraceptive based on this diagnosis. She also was referred to gynecology and plastic surgery for a joint surgical consultation to remove the nodule. She initially decided to do a trial of the oral contraceptive but subsequently underwent umbilical endometrioma excision with neo-umbilicus creation with no evidence of recurrence.

Primary cutaneous endometriosis should be considered in young females who present with tender umbilical nodules. Endometriosis refers to the presence of an endometriumlike epithelium outside the endometrium and myometrium.¹ The condition affects 10% to 15% of reproductive-aged (ie, 18-49 years) women in the United States and typically involves tissues within the pelvis, such as the ovaries, pouch of Douglas, or pelvic ligaments.² Cutaneous endometriosis is the growth of endometrial tissue in the skin and is rare, accounting for less than 5.5% of cases of extrapelvic endometriosis worldwide, affecting primarily the umbilicus, abdominal wall, and vulva.^3,4

The 2 main types of cutaneous endometriosis are primary (spontaneous) and secondary. Primary lesions develop in patients without prior surgical history, and secondary lesions occur within previous surgical incision sites, often scars from cesarean delivery.⁵ Less than 30% of cases of cutaneous endometriosis are primary disease.⁶ Primary cutaneous endometriosis of the umbilicus, known as Villar nodule, was first described in 1886.^3,7 Up to 40% of patients with extrapelvic endometriosis worldwide presented with Villar nodules in a systematic literature review.⁶ The prevalence of these nodules is unknown, but the incidence is less than 1% of cases of extragenital endometriosis.⁴

There are 2 leading theories of primary cutaneous endometriosis pathogenesis. The first is the transportation theory, in which endometrial cells are transported outside the uterus via the lymphatic system.⁸ The second is the metaplasia theory, which proposed that endometrial cells develop in the coelomic mesothelium in the presence of high estrogen levels.^8,9

Secondary cutaneous endometriosis, also known as scar endometriosis, is suspected to be caused by an iatrogenic implantation of endometrial cells at the scar of a prior surgical site.⁹ Although our patient had an existing umbilicus scar from a piercing, it was improbable for that to have been the nidus, as the keloid scar was superficial and did not have contact with the abdominal cavity for iatrogenic implantation. Clinical diagnosis for secondary cutaneous endometriosis often is made based on a triad of features: a nonmalignant abdominal mass, recurring pain and bleeding of the lesion with menses, and prior history of abdominal surgery.^9,10 On clinical examination, these features typically manifest as a palpable subcutaneous mass that is black, blue, brown, or red. Often, the lesions enlarge and bleed during the menstrual cycle, causing pain, tenderness, or pruritus.³ Dermoscopic features of secondary cutaneous endometriosis are erythematous umbilical nodules with a homogeneous vascular pattern that appears red with a brownish hue (Figure 2).^9,11 Dermoscopic features may vary with the hormone cycle; for example, the follicular phase (correlating with day 7 of menses) demonstrates polypoid projections, erythematous violaceous color, dark-brown spots, and active bleeding of the lesion.¹² Clinical and dermoscopic examination are useful tools in this diagnosis.

Imaging such as ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging may be useful in identifying abdominal endometriomas.^8,13,14 Pelvic involvement of endometriosis was found in approximately 15% of patients in a case series,⁴ with concurrent primary umbilical endometriosis. Imaging studies may assist evaluation for fistula formation, presence of malignancies, and the extent of endometriosis within the abdominal cavity.

Histopathology is key to confirming cutaneous endometriosis and shows multiple bland-appearing glands of varying sizes with loose, concentric, edematous, or fibromyxoid stroma (Figure 1).³ Red blood cells sometimes are found with hemosiderin within the stroma. Immunohistochemical staining with estrogen receptors may aid in identifying the endometriumlike epithelial cells.¹³

Standard treatment involves surgical excision with 1-cm margins and umbilical preservation, which results in a recurrence rate of less than 10%.^4,10 Medical therapy, such as aromatase inhibitors, progestogens, antiprogestogens, combined oral contraceptives, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists may help manage pain or reduce the size of the nodule.^4,15 Simple observation also is a potential course for patients who decline treatment options.

Differential diagnoses include lobular capillary hemangioma, also known as pyogenic granuloma; Sister Mary Joseph nodule; umbilical hernia; and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Lobular capillary hemangiomas commonly are acquired benign vascular proliferations of the skin that are friable and tend to ulcerate.¹⁶ These lesions typically grow rapidly and often are located on the face, lips, mucosae, and fingers. Histopathologic examination may show an exophytic lesion with lobules of proliferating capillaries within an edematous matrix, superficial ulceration, and an epithelial collarette.¹⁷ Treatment includes surgical excision, cauterization, laser treatments, sclerotherapy, injectable medications, and topical medications, but recurrence is possible with any of these interventions.¹⁸

Cutaneous metastasis of an internal solid organ cancer, commonly known as a Sister Mary Joseph nodule, typically manifests as an erythematous, irregularly shaped nodule that may protrude from the umbilicus.¹⁴ Gastrointestinal symptoms such as change in bowel habits or obstructive symptoms in the setting of a progressive malignancy are common.¹⁴ Clinical features include a firm fixed lesion, oozing, and ulceration.¹⁹ On dermoscopy, polymorphous vascular patterns, milky red structureless areas, and white lines typically are present.¹¹ Although dermoscopic features may differentiate this entity from cutaneous endometriosis, tissue sampling and histologic examination are crucial diagnostic tools to identify malignant vs benign lesions.

An umbilical hernia is a protrusion of omentum, bowel, or other intra-abdominal organs in an abdominal wall defect. Clinical presentation includes a soft protrusion that may be reduced on palpation if nonstrangulated.²⁰ Treatment includes watchful waiting or surgical repair. The reducibility and presence of an abdominal wall defect may point to this diagnosis. Imaging also may aid in the diagnosis if the history and physical examination are unclear.

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is a slow-developing, low- to intermediate-grade, soft-tissue sarcoma that occurs in less than 0.1% of all cancers in the United States.²¹ Lesions often manifest as small, firm, slow-growing, painless, flesh-colored dermal plaques; subcutaneous thickening; or atrophic nonprotuberant lesions typically involving the trunk.²¹ Histopathologically, they are composed of uniform spindle-cell proliferation growing in a storiform pattern and subcutaneous fat trapping that has strong and diffuse CD34 immunoreactivity.^21,22 Pathologic examination typically distinguishes this diagnosis from cutaneous endometriosis. Treatment includes tumor resection that may or may not involve radiotherapy and targeted therapy, as recurrence and metastases are possible.

Primary cutaneous endometriosis is a rare but important diagnosis for dermatologists to consider when evaluating umbilical nodules. Clinical features may include bleeding masses during menses in females of reproductive age. Dermoscopic examination aids in workup, and histopathologic testing can confirm the diagnosis and rule out malignancies. Surgical excision is the treatment of choice with a low rate of recurrence.