TBD Meeting (2961-19)

DENVER – There is an apparent disconnect between the level of periprocedural pain experienced by patients during vascular laser procedures and what device manufacturers say that level of pain should be, results from a retrospective study showed.

“Although there is an abundance of research on how pain signals are transmitted in the nervous system and how pain is perceived among certain patient demographics, there is not much known about how pain perception differs from that put forth by industry,” Lauren Bonati, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This study is unique because we are questioning not whether pain perception is reproducible between patients, but rather if it reflects what industry and device manufacturers are telling us.”

Dr. Bonati, a dermatologist at Edwards, Colo.–based Mountain Dermatology Specialists, and her colleagues collected median and mode pain scores from a past clinical trial that investigated a dual wavelength laser used for different types of treatments. “The treatment type (laser wavelength and treatment area) was largely based on the severity of facial redness for each individual patient,” she explained. “The options were spot treatment, nose and cheeks, or a global facial treatment with either wavelength.” The researchers reviewed industry-provided materials to determine language regarding procedural pain, and they interviewed the clinical trial’s principal investigator about how pain expectations were set during the trial. Next, they transferred subject-reported pain scores and verbal pain descriptors to the validated Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale, for comparison.

In all, 85 procedural pain scores were collected from 22 subject charts. The researchers found that the average procedural pain scores for treatment types reported by subjects were translated to entirely different verbal and numerical categories of pain from those described by industry materials. “It was surprising to see how vague pain descriptions can be in device manuals and industry materials, if even addressed at all,” Dr. Bonati said.

She advised clinicians to be wary of whom they rely on for information related to pain expectations. “Also, remember that wrongly set pain expectations can have physiologic and emotional effects that may positively or negatively impact patient experience,” Dr. Bonati said. “Preprocedural pain counseling is an important part of any procedure.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a review of a previously conducted clinical trial, “which is not a perfect representation of real-life clinic.”

She reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

DENVER – There is an apparent disconnect between the level of periprocedural pain experienced by patients during vascular laser procedures and what device manufacturers say that level of pain should be, results from a retrospective study showed.

“Although there is an abundance of research on how pain signals are transmitted in the nervous system and how pain is perceived among certain patient demographics, there is not much known about how pain perception differs from that put forth by industry,” Lauren Bonati, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This study is unique because we are questioning not whether pain perception is reproducible between patients, but rather if it reflects what industry and device manufacturers are telling us.”

Dr. Bonati, a dermatologist at Edwards, Colo.–based Mountain Dermatology Specialists, and her colleagues collected median and mode pain scores from a past clinical trial that investigated a dual wavelength laser used for different types of treatments. “The treatment type (laser wavelength and treatment area) was largely based on the severity of facial redness for each individual patient,” she explained. “The options were spot treatment, nose and cheeks, or a global facial treatment with either wavelength.” The researchers reviewed industry-provided materials to determine language regarding procedural pain, and they interviewed the clinical trial’s principal investigator about how pain expectations were set during the trial. Next, they transferred subject-reported pain scores and verbal pain descriptors to the validated Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale, for comparison.

In all, 85 procedural pain scores were collected from 22 subject charts. The researchers found that the average procedural pain scores for treatment types reported by subjects were translated to entirely different verbal and numerical categories of pain from those described by industry materials. “It was surprising to see how vague pain descriptions can be in device manuals and industry materials, if even addressed at all,” Dr. Bonati said.

She advised clinicians to be wary of whom they rely on for information related to pain expectations. “Also, remember that wrongly set pain expectations can have physiologic and emotional effects that may positively or negatively impact patient experience,” Dr. Bonati said. “Preprocedural pain counseling is an important part of any procedure.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a review of a previously conducted clinical trial, “which is not a perfect representation of real-life clinic.”

She reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

DENVER – There is an apparent disconnect between the level of periprocedural pain experienced by patients during vascular laser procedures and what device manufacturers say that level of pain should be, results from a retrospective study showed.

“Although there is an abundance of research on how pain signals are transmitted in the nervous system and how pain is perceived among certain patient demographics, there is not much known about how pain perception differs from that put forth by industry,” Lauren Bonati, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This study is unique because we are questioning not whether pain perception is reproducible between patients, but rather if it reflects what industry and device manufacturers are telling us.”

Dr. Bonati, a dermatologist at Edwards, Colo.–based Mountain Dermatology Specialists, and her colleagues collected median and mode pain scores from a past clinical trial that investigated a dual wavelength laser used for different types of treatments. “The treatment type (laser wavelength and treatment area) was largely based on the severity of facial redness for each individual patient,” she explained. “The options were spot treatment, nose and cheeks, or a global facial treatment with either wavelength.” The researchers reviewed industry-provided materials to determine language regarding procedural pain, and they interviewed the clinical trial’s principal investigator about how pain expectations were set during the trial. Next, they transferred subject-reported pain scores and verbal pain descriptors to the validated Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale, for comparison.

In all, 85 procedural pain scores were collected from 22 subject charts. The researchers found that the average procedural pain scores for treatment types reported by subjects were translated to entirely different verbal and numerical categories of pain from those described by industry materials. “It was surprising to see how vague pain descriptions can be in device manuals and industry materials, if even addressed at all,” Dr. Bonati said.

She advised clinicians to be wary of whom they rely on for information related to pain expectations. “Also, remember that wrongly set pain expectations can have physiologic and emotional effects that may positively or negatively impact patient experience,” Dr. Bonati said. “Preprocedural pain counseling is an important part of any procedure.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a review of a previously conducted clinical trial, “which is not a perfect representation of real-life clinic.”

She reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

DENVER – Patients treated with a new device that delivered high magnetic energy with a 3-cm spot size experienced an overall improvement in lower face and neck skin laxity, results from a small trial showed.

“There are many different modalities for tissue tightening, including lights, radiofrequency, ultrasound and thermal energy,” Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The idea behind all of these technologies is to heat up the skin’s collagen and to stimulate further collagen production, which can then result in improved skin tightening and textural improvement.”

In a trial conducted at the Chicago-based Physicians Laser and Dermatology Institute, Dr. Garden and his colleagues evaluated a new technology for tissue tightening that involves magnetic energy. Developed by Rocky Mountain Biosystems and BioFusionary Corp., the investigative device produces a magnetic field in the targeted tissue, which then results in the heating and eventual tightening of the tissue. “By using magnetic energy, which relies on the polarity of the molecules, it allows for a safe way to target specifically the polar dermis, without heating the relatively dry epidermis or nonpolar adipose layer, resulting in a more tolerable and potentially safer alternative to tissue tightening,” said Dr. Garden, a dermatologist who is the director of the Physicians Laser and Dermatology Institute.

For the trial, 20 patients with facial and upper skin laxity underwent a mean of 4.3 treatment sessions with the 27MHz magnetic device that used a 3-cm spot size, with a minimum of 4 weeks between each session. No anesthetics or analgesics were used. “No gels or skin prep was performed before the treatment, other than a gentle soap beforehand,” Dr. Garden said. “A bland moisturizer was applied to the treated skin after treatments.” The majority of patients (85%) had paid for their procedures (a price comparable to other skin-tightening procedures), and two board-certified dermatologists evaluated both before and after photographs for overall improvement of skin laxity and texture. Follow-ups were done 2-4 months after the last treatment. The observers were not informed which photographs were before or after.

Dr. Garden reported that the observers correctly chose 19 out of 20 patients’ before and after photographs, and they rated the mean grade level of improvement as 43%. Nearly half of the patients (48%) were graded at 50% or greater improvement. At the same time, patients rated their own improvement as a mean 6.5 out of 10. Nearly half of patients graded their outcome at 7 or better, which was designated as “very satisfied.” The procedures were well tolerated, Dr. Garden said, and the most common side effects were minor transient erythema and edema. The erythema generally faded after 2-4 hours, and the mild edema lasted up to 24 hours.

“Magnetic energy is a new technology that can be used to treat lower face and neck laxity,” said Dr. Garden, who is also a professor of clinical dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We only treated patients with skin types I-IV, but we feel that this technology is likely safe for higher skin types as well.”

Rocky Mountain Biosystems and BioFusionary Corp. provided the device used for the study. Dr. Garden and his colleagues are currently extending the ongoing trial. He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – Patients treated with a new device that delivered high magnetic energy with a 3-cm spot size experienced an overall improvement in lower face and neck skin laxity, results from a small trial showed.

“There are many different modalities for tissue tightening, including lights, radiofrequency, ultrasound and thermal energy,” Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The idea behind all of these technologies is to heat up the skin’s collagen and to stimulate further collagen production, which can then result in improved skin tightening and textural improvement.”

In a trial conducted at the Chicago-based Physicians Laser and Dermatology Institute, Dr. Garden and his colleagues evaluated a new technology for tissue tightening that involves magnetic energy. Developed by Rocky Mountain Biosystems and BioFusionary Corp., the investigative device produces a magnetic field in the targeted tissue, which then results in the heating and eventual tightening of the tissue. “By using magnetic energy, which relies on the polarity of the molecules, it allows for a safe way to target specifically the polar dermis, without heating the relatively dry epidermis or nonpolar adipose layer, resulting in a more tolerable and potentially safer alternative to tissue tightening,” said Dr. Garden, a dermatologist who is the director of the Physicians Laser and Dermatology Institute.

For the trial, 20 patients with facial and upper skin laxity underwent a mean of 4.3 treatment sessions with the 27MHz magnetic device that used a 3-cm spot size, with a minimum of 4 weeks between each session. No anesthetics or analgesics were used. “No gels or skin prep was performed before the treatment, other than a gentle soap beforehand,” Dr. Garden said. “A bland moisturizer was applied to the treated skin after treatments.” The majority of patients (85%) had paid for their procedures (a price comparable to other skin-tightening procedures), and two board-certified dermatologists evaluated both before and after photographs for overall improvement of skin laxity and texture. Follow-ups were done 2-4 months after the last treatment. The observers were not informed which photographs were before or after.

Dr. Garden reported that the observers correctly chose 19 out of 20 patients’ before and after photographs, and they rated the mean grade level of improvement as 43%. Nearly half of the patients (48%) were graded at 50% or greater improvement. At the same time, patients rated their own improvement as a mean 6.5 out of 10. Nearly half of patients graded their outcome at 7 or better, which was designated as “very satisfied.” The procedures were well tolerated, Dr. Garden said, and the most common side effects were minor transient erythema and edema. The erythema generally faded after 2-4 hours, and the mild edema lasted up to 24 hours.

“Magnetic energy is a new technology that can be used to treat lower face and neck laxity,” said Dr. Garden, who is also a professor of clinical dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We only treated patients with skin types I-IV, but we feel that this technology is likely safe for higher skin types as well.”

Rocky Mountain Biosystems and BioFusionary Corp. provided the device used for the study. Dr. Garden and his colleagues are currently extending the ongoing trial. He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – Patients treated with a new device that delivered high magnetic energy with a 3-cm spot size experienced an overall improvement in lower face and neck skin laxity, results from a small trial showed.

“There are many different modalities for tissue tightening, including lights, radiofrequency, ultrasound and thermal energy,” Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The idea behind all of these technologies is to heat up the skin’s collagen and to stimulate further collagen production, which can then result in improved skin tightening and textural improvement.”

In a trial conducted at the Chicago-based Physicians Laser and Dermatology Institute, Dr. Garden and his colleagues evaluated a new technology for tissue tightening that involves magnetic energy. Developed by Rocky Mountain Biosystems and BioFusionary Corp., the investigative device produces a magnetic field in the targeted tissue, which then results in the heating and eventual tightening of the tissue. “By using magnetic energy, which relies on the polarity of the molecules, it allows for a safe way to target specifically the polar dermis, without heating the relatively dry epidermis or nonpolar adipose layer, resulting in a more tolerable and potentially safer alternative to tissue tightening,” said Dr. Garden, a dermatologist who is the director of the Physicians Laser and Dermatology Institute.

For the trial, 20 patients with facial and upper skin laxity underwent a mean of 4.3 treatment sessions with the 27MHz magnetic device that used a 3-cm spot size, with a minimum of 4 weeks between each session. No anesthetics or analgesics were used. “No gels or skin prep was performed before the treatment, other than a gentle soap beforehand,” Dr. Garden said. “A bland moisturizer was applied to the treated skin after treatments.” The majority of patients (85%) had paid for their procedures (a price comparable to other skin-tightening procedures), and two board-certified dermatologists evaluated both before and after photographs for overall improvement of skin laxity and texture. Follow-ups were done 2-4 months after the last treatment. The observers were not informed which photographs were before or after.

Dr. Garden reported that the observers correctly chose 19 out of 20 patients’ before and after photographs, and they rated the mean grade level of improvement as 43%. Nearly half of the patients (48%) were graded at 50% or greater improvement. At the same time, patients rated their own improvement as a mean 6.5 out of 10. Nearly half of patients graded their outcome at 7 or better, which was designated as “very satisfied.” The procedures were well tolerated, Dr. Garden said, and the most common side effects were minor transient erythema and edema. The erythema generally faded after 2-4 hours, and the mild edema lasted up to 24 hours.

“Magnetic energy is a new technology that can be used to treat lower face and neck laxity,” said Dr. Garden, who is also a professor of clinical dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We only treated patients with skin types I-IV, but we feel that this technology is likely safe for higher skin types as well.”

Rocky Mountain Biosystems and BioFusionary Corp. provided the device used for the study. Dr. Garden and his colleagues are currently extending the ongoing trial. He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – A clinically identifiable scar occurs after full-thickness skin wounds greater than 400-500 mcm in diameter, while wounds of smaller diameter heal with no clinically perceptible scar.

The findings come from a small pilot trial that set out to determine the biopsy size limit at which healing occurs without a scar, as well as demonstrate the safety of performing multiple skin microbiopsies. “The broader purpose of this work is to contribute to the development of techniques for harvesting skin tissue with less morbidity than conventional methods,” lead study author Amanda H. Champlain, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The size threshold at which a full-thickness skin wound can heal without scarring had not been determined prior to this study.”

Dr. Champlain, a fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and The Wellman Center for Photomedicine, both in Boston, and her colleagues designed a way to evaluate healing responses and safety after collecting skin microbiopsies of different sizes from preabdominoplasty skin. According to the study abstract, the concept “is based on fractional photothermolysis in which a multitude of small, full-thickness thermal burns are produced by a laser on the skin with rapid healing and no scarring.” Measures included the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), donor site pain scale, subject satisfaction survey, and an assessment of side effects, clinical photographs, and histology.

Preliminary data are available for five subjects. The POSAS-Observer scale ranges from 5 to 50 while the POSAS-Patient scale ranges from 6 to 60. The researchers observed that average final POSAS-Observer scores were 5.6 for scars 200 mcm in diameter, 5.2 for scars 400 mcm in diameter, 7.0 for scars 500 mcm in diameter, 6.8 for scars 600 mcm in diameter, 8.2 for scars 800 mcm in diameter, 9.6 for scars 1 mm in diameter, and 13.2 for those 2 mm in diameter. Meanwhile, the average final POSAS-Subject scores were 6.0 for scars 200 mcm in diameter, 6.0 for scars 400 mcm in diameter, 6.6 for scars 500 mcm in diameter, 6.4 for those 600 mcm in diameter, 7.2 for scars 800 mcm in diameter, 7.4 for scars 1 mm in diameter, and 10.0 for those 2 mm in diameter.

The maximum donor site pain reported was 4 out of 10 in one subject. “The procedure was very well tolerated by the subjects,” Dr. Champlain said. “They healed quickly, and the majority were happy with the cosmetic outcome regardless of the diameter of the microbiopsy used.”

The most common side effects of the study procedures included mild bleeding, scabbing, redness, and hyper/hypopigmentation. “The majority of study participants strongly agree that the study procedure was safe, tolerable, and cosmetically sound,” she said.

Dr. Champlain does not have any disclosures, but she said that the study was funded by the Department of Defense.

[email protected]

DENVER – A clinically identifiable scar occurs after full-thickness skin wounds greater than 400-500 mcm in diameter, while wounds of smaller diameter heal with no clinically perceptible scar.

The findings come from a small pilot trial that set out to determine the biopsy size limit at which healing occurs without a scar, as well as demonstrate the safety of performing multiple skin microbiopsies. “The broader purpose of this work is to contribute to the development of techniques for harvesting skin tissue with less morbidity than conventional methods,” lead study author Amanda H. Champlain, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The size threshold at which a full-thickness skin wound can heal without scarring had not been determined prior to this study.”

Dr. Champlain, a fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and The Wellman Center for Photomedicine, both in Boston, and her colleagues designed a way to evaluate healing responses and safety after collecting skin microbiopsies of different sizes from preabdominoplasty skin. According to the study abstract, the concept “is based on fractional photothermolysis in which a multitude of small, full-thickness thermal burns are produced by a laser on the skin with rapid healing and no scarring.” Measures included the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), donor site pain scale, subject satisfaction survey, and an assessment of side effects, clinical photographs, and histology.

Preliminary data are available for five subjects. The POSAS-Observer scale ranges from 5 to 50 while the POSAS-Patient scale ranges from 6 to 60. The researchers observed that average final POSAS-Observer scores were 5.6 for scars 200 mcm in diameter, 5.2 for scars 400 mcm in diameter, 7.0 for scars 500 mcm in diameter, 6.8 for scars 600 mcm in diameter, 8.2 for scars 800 mcm in diameter, 9.6 for scars 1 mm in diameter, and 13.2 for those 2 mm in diameter. Meanwhile, the average final POSAS-Subject scores were 6.0 for scars 200 mcm in diameter, 6.0 for scars 400 mcm in diameter, 6.6 for scars 500 mcm in diameter, 6.4 for those 600 mcm in diameter, 7.2 for scars 800 mcm in diameter, 7.4 for scars 1 mm in diameter, and 10.0 for those 2 mm in diameter.

The maximum donor site pain reported was 4 out of 10 in one subject. “The procedure was very well tolerated by the subjects,” Dr. Champlain said. “They healed quickly, and the majority were happy with the cosmetic outcome regardless of the diameter of the microbiopsy used.”

The most common side effects of the study procedures included mild bleeding, scabbing, redness, and hyper/hypopigmentation. “The majority of study participants strongly agree that the study procedure was safe, tolerable, and cosmetically sound,” she said.

Dr. Champlain does not have any disclosures, but she said that the study was funded by the Department of Defense.

[email protected]

DENVER – A clinically identifiable scar occurs after full-thickness skin wounds greater than 400-500 mcm in diameter, while wounds of smaller diameter heal with no clinically perceptible scar.

The findings come from a small pilot trial that set out to determine the biopsy size limit at which healing occurs without a scar, as well as demonstrate the safety of performing multiple skin microbiopsies. “The broader purpose of this work is to contribute to the development of techniques for harvesting skin tissue with less morbidity than conventional methods,” lead study author Amanda H. Champlain, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The size threshold at which a full-thickness skin wound can heal without scarring had not been determined prior to this study.”

Dr. Champlain, a fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and The Wellman Center for Photomedicine, both in Boston, and her colleagues designed a way to evaluate healing responses and safety after collecting skin microbiopsies of different sizes from preabdominoplasty skin. According to the study abstract, the concept “is based on fractional photothermolysis in which a multitude of small, full-thickness thermal burns are produced by a laser on the skin with rapid healing and no scarring.” Measures included the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), donor site pain scale, subject satisfaction survey, and an assessment of side effects, clinical photographs, and histology.

Preliminary data are available for five subjects. The POSAS-Observer scale ranges from 5 to 50 while the POSAS-Patient scale ranges from 6 to 60. The researchers observed that average final POSAS-Observer scores were 5.6 for scars 200 mcm in diameter, 5.2 for scars 400 mcm in diameter, 7.0 for scars 500 mcm in diameter, 6.8 for scars 600 mcm in diameter, 8.2 for scars 800 mcm in diameter, 9.6 for scars 1 mm in diameter, and 13.2 for those 2 mm in diameter. Meanwhile, the average final POSAS-Subject scores were 6.0 for scars 200 mcm in diameter, 6.0 for scars 400 mcm in diameter, 6.6 for scars 500 mcm in diameter, 6.4 for those 600 mcm in diameter, 7.2 for scars 800 mcm in diameter, 7.4 for scars 1 mm in diameter, and 10.0 for those 2 mm in diameter.

The maximum donor site pain reported was 4 out of 10 in one subject. “The procedure was very well tolerated by the subjects,” Dr. Champlain said. “They healed quickly, and the majority were happy with the cosmetic outcome regardless of the diameter of the microbiopsy used.”

The most common side effects of the study procedures included mild bleeding, scabbing, redness, and hyper/hypopigmentation. “The majority of study participants strongly agree that the study procedure was safe, tolerable, and cosmetically sound,” she said.

Dr. Champlain does not have any disclosures, but she said that the study was funded by the Department of Defense.

[email protected]

DENVER – Laser-associated adverse events are not uncommon – affecting more than 1 in 10 dermatology residents, results from a novel survey demonstrated.

“Incorporating a formal laser safety education curriculum is an opportunity for residency programs and organizations like ASLMS,” study coauthor Daniel J. Bergman, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Bergman and his coauthor Shari A. Ochoa, MD, created an online survey intended to evaluate the safety education and number of adverse laser-associated events that occurred during dermatology residencies in the United States. After the coauthors sought input for content of the survey from dermatology faculty and their colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., they used the Association of Professors of Dermatology email database to distribute the survey to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–approved dermatology residency programs. “In general, most studies evaluate the models of education and the number of hours dedicated to learning a skill,” said Dr. Bergman, who is a first-year dermatology resident at the Mayo Clinic. “This study is unique because it identified adverse events experienced by dermatology residents and also evaluated their formal laser safety training.”


To date, 78 dermatology residents have completed responses to the survey. Of these, 10 (13%) identified an adverse event associated with use of a laser. Of those respondents, six respondents knew how to report the event, five felt comfortable operating the laser, three had formal laser safety training, five felt like they understood the risks associated with lasers, and all but one felt properly supervised. One identified plans for postresidency laser training. Of the 68 respondents who have not identified an adverse event, 39 (57%) reported formal laser safety training, and only 24 (35%) indicated that they knew how to report an adverse event.

“I was interested to find that 13% of dermatology residents have already experienced an adverse laser event,” Dr. Bergman said. “I was also surprised to discover that only 54% of all survey respondents identified or recognized formal laser safety training. The ACGME mandates that dermatology residents receive training in the theoretical and practical applications of lasers. This finding may indicate that additional training, focusing on laser safety, should be incorporated more formally into the curriculum at some programs.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the relatively small number of respondents and the fact that only ACGME-accredited residencies were asked to participate. “Therefore, we are still missing a large amount of data,” Dr. Bergman said. “Most notably, the results are subject to recall bias and participants defined the nature of an adverse laser event.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – Laser-associated adverse events are not uncommon – affecting more than 1 in 10 dermatology residents, results from a novel survey demonstrated.

“Incorporating a formal laser safety education curriculum is an opportunity for residency programs and organizations like ASLMS,” study coauthor Daniel J. Bergman, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Bergman and his coauthor Shari A. Ochoa, MD, created an online survey intended to evaluate the safety education and number of adverse laser-associated events that occurred during dermatology residencies in the United States. After the coauthors sought input for content of the survey from dermatology faculty and their colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., they used the Association of Professors of Dermatology email database to distribute the survey to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–approved dermatology residency programs. “In general, most studies evaluate the models of education and the number of hours dedicated to learning a skill,” said Dr. Bergman, who is a first-year dermatology resident at the Mayo Clinic. “This study is unique because it identified adverse events experienced by dermatology residents and also evaluated their formal laser safety training.”


To date, 78 dermatology residents have completed responses to the survey. Of these, 10 (13%) identified an adverse event associated with use of a laser. Of those respondents, six respondents knew how to report the event, five felt comfortable operating the laser, three had formal laser safety training, five felt like they understood the risks associated with lasers, and all but one felt properly supervised. One identified plans for postresidency laser training. Of the 68 respondents who have not identified an adverse event, 39 (57%) reported formal laser safety training, and only 24 (35%) indicated that they knew how to report an adverse event.

“I was interested to find that 13% of dermatology residents have already experienced an adverse laser event,” Dr. Bergman said. “I was also surprised to discover that only 54% of all survey respondents identified or recognized formal laser safety training. The ACGME mandates that dermatology residents receive training in the theoretical and practical applications of lasers. This finding may indicate that additional training, focusing on laser safety, should be incorporated more formally into the curriculum at some programs.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the relatively small number of respondents and the fact that only ACGME-accredited residencies were asked to participate. “Therefore, we are still missing a large amount of data,” Dr. Bergman said. “Most notably, the results are subject to recall bias and participants defined the nature of an adverse laser event.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

DENVER – Laser-associated adverse events are not uncommon – affecting more than 1 in 10 dermatology residents, results from a novel survey demonstrated.

“Incorporating a formal laser safety education curriculum is an opportunity for residency programs and organizations like ASLMS,” study coauthor Daniel J. Bergman, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Bergman and his coauthor Shari A. Ochoa, MD, created an online survey intended to evaluate the safety education and number of adverse laser-associated events that occurred during dermatology residencies in the United States. After the coauthors sought input for content of the survey from dermatology faculty and their colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., they used the Association of Professors of Dermatology email database to distribute the survey to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–approved dermatology residency programs. “In general, most studies evaluate the models of education and the number of hours dedicated to learning a skill,” said Dr. Bergman, who is a first-year dermatology resident at the Mayo Clinic. “This study is unique because it identified adverse events experienced by dermatology residents and also evaluated their formal laser safety training.”


To date, 78 dermatology residents have completed responses to the survey. Of these, 10 (13%) identified an adverse event associated with use of a laser. Of those respondents, six respondents knew how to report the event, five felt comfortable operating the laser, three had formal laser safety training, five felt like they understood the risks associated with lasers, and all but one felt properly supervised. One identified plans for postresidency laser training. Of the 68 respondents who have not identified an adverse event, 39 (57%) reported formal laser safety training, and only 24 (35%) indicated that they knew how to report an adverse event.

“I was interested to find that 13% of dermatology residents have already experienced an adverse laser event,” Dr. Bergman said. “I was also surprised to discover that only 54% of all survey respondents identified or recognized formal laser safety training. The ACGME mandates that dermatology residents receive training in the theoretical and practical applications of lasers. This finding may indicate that additional training, focusing on laser safety, should be incorporated more formally into the curriculum at some programs.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the relatively small number of respondents and the fact that only ACGME-accredited residencies were asked to participate. “Therefore, we are still missing a large amount of data,” Dr. Bergman said. “Most notably, the results are subject to recall bias and participants defined the nature of an adverse laser event.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]