Commentary

All young physicians are adept at using electronic medical records. Do you agree? If so, you’d be wrong. It’s true that young, so-called “digital-native” physicians have more training and experience using EMRs, compared with those who trained in the days of paper charts. But young physicians are also inexperienced at caring for patients, and using a keyboard adds complexity to an already difficult task. Some struggle with the sheer volume of work that EMRs create, while others wrestle with the intrusive computer in the exam room. The former is a complex problem, and solving it involves improving both system and individual work flows. The latter is one I’ve had great success with when coaching inexperienced doctors.

One of my roles at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, is to coach new physicians to help them perform at their best. In particular, we provide one-on-one help for physicians to optimize the quality of service they provide. More often than not, young physicians benefit from optimizing their work flow as much as from modifying their bedside manner.

Here are five common tips I share with them to improve their service while using EMRs:

• Preview coming attractions. High-quality interactions require that prep work be done before the visit begins. Before seeing your patient, review his or her record to learn about the medical history, particularly any recent important health issues. This is true even if the problem is not related to your specialty. This sends a strong signal to your patient that you know and care about him or her as a person.

• Connect with your patient first, then turn to HealthConnect (our version of the EPIC electronic record). For every patient, every visit, spend the first few minutes giving your undivided attention to them while in the room. Conversely, entering the room and logging on the computer immediately diminishes the quality of the experience for patients.

• Ask permission, not forgiveness. When you must use the EMR to review or to chart, ask permission first. Try something like, “This is important. Do you mind if I start typing some of this to be sure it is captured in your record?” I’ve never seen a patient object if you start typing. If they did, then the time isn’t right for you to go to the EMR, and it would best for you to address their concern first.

• Share the screen. Many patients love to see their chart. It’s like giving them a backstage pass. It’s also a great way to keep them engaged while you talk about their issues. Point things out to them and use it to engage in discussion. The better informed your patients are, the more likely they will evaluate you favorably, and the more likely they are to adhere to your advice.

• Complete diagnoses and write any prescriptions while in the room. This is a wonderful opportunity to engage with your patients on the risks and benefits of what you recommend, to review your specific instructions, and to allow them to see their diagnoses written out. Close with a printed copy of what just transpired. The act of giving something tangible makes the encounter feel complete, while also increasing patients’ retention of key information and their likelihood of following up as directed.

As more young physicians join us in the workforce, we know that it doesn’t matter much if you grew up with Facebook and Snapchat; using EMRs effectively is a learned skill that all of us can improve upon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

All young physicians are adept at using electronic medical records. Do you agree? If so, you’d be wrong. It’s true that young, so-called “digital-native” physicians have more training and experience using EMRs, compared with those who trained in the days of paper charts. But young physicians are also inexperienced at caring for patients, and using a keyboard adds complexity to an already difficult task. Some struggle with the sheer volume of work that EMRs create, while others wrestle with the intrusive computer in the exam room. The former is a complex problem, and solving it involves improving both system and individual work flows. The latter is one I’ve had great success with when coaching inexperienced doctors.

One of my roles at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, is to coach new physicians to help them perform at their best. In particular, we provide one-on-one help for physicians to optimize the quality of service they provide. More often than not, young physicians benefit from optimizing their work flow as much as from modifying their bedside manner.

Here are five common tips I share with them to improve their service while using EMRs:

• Preview coming attractions. High-quality interactions require that prep work be done before the visit begins. Before seeing your patient, review his or her record to learn about the medical history, particularly any recent important health issues. This is true even if the problem is not related to your specialty. This sends a strong signal to your patient that you know and care about him or her as a person.

• Connect with your patient first, then turn to HealthConnect (our version of the EPIC electronic record). For every patient, every visit, spend the first few minutes giving your undivided attention to them while in the room. Conversely, entering the room and logging on the computer immediately diminishes the quality of the experience for patients.

• Ask permission, not forgiveness. When you must use the EMR to review or to chart, ask permission first. Try something like, “This is important. Do you mind if I start typing some of this to be sure it is captured in your record?” I’ve never seen a patient object if you start typing. If they did, then the time isn’t right for you to go to the EMR, and it would best for you to address their concern first.

• Share the screen. Many patients love to see their chart. It’s like giving them a backstage pass. It’s also a great way to keep them engaged while you talk about their issues. Point things out to them and use it to engage in discussion. The better informed your patients are, the more likely they will evaluate you favorably, and the more likely they are to adhere to your advice.

• Complete diagnoses and write any prescriptions while in the room. This is a wonderful opportunity to engage with your patients on the risks and benefits of what you recommend, to review your specific instructions, and to allow them to see their diagnoses written out. Close with a printed copy of what just transpired. The act of giving something tangible makes the encounter feel complete, while also increasing patients’ retention of key information and their likelihood of following up as directed.

As more young physicians join us in the workforce, we know that it doesn’t matter much if you grew up with Facebook and Snapchat; using EMRs effectively is a learned skill that all of us can improve upon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

All young physicians are adept at using electronic medical records. Do you agree? If so, you’d be wrong. It’s true that young, so-called “digital-native” physicians have more training and experience using EMRs, compared with those who trained in the days of paper charts. But young physicians are also inexperienced at caring for patients, and using a keyboard adds complexity to an already difficult task. Some struggle with the sheer volume of work that EMRs create, while others wrestle with the intrusive computer in the exam room. The former is a complex problem, and solving it involves improving both system and individual work flows. The latter is one I’ve had great success with when coaching inexperienced doctors.

One of my roles at Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, is to coach new physicians to help them perform at their best. In particular, we provide one-on-one help for physicians to optimize the quality of service they provide. More often than not, young physicians benefit from optimizing their work flow as much as from modifying their bedside manner.

Here are five common tips I share with them to improve their service while using EMRs:

• Preview coming attractions. High-quality interactions require that prep work be done before the visit begins. Before seeing your patient, review his or her record to learn about the medical history, particularly any recent important health issues. This is true even if the problem is not related to your specialty. This sends a strong signal to your patient that you know and care about him or her as a person.

• Connect with your patient first, then turn to HealthConnect (our version of the EPIC electronic record). For every patient, every visit, spend the first few minutes giving your undivided attention to them while in the room. Conversely, entering the room and logging on the computer immediately diminishes the quality of the experience for patients.

• Ask permission, not forgiveness. When you must use the EMR to review or to chart, ask permission first. Try something like, “This is important. Do you mind if I start typing some of this to be sure it is captured in your record?” I’ve never seen a patient object if you start typing. If they did, then the time isn’t right for you to go to the EMR, and it would best for you to address their concern first.

• Share the screen. Many patients love to see their chart. It’s like giving them a backstage pass. It’s also a great way to keep them engaged while you talk about their issues. Point things out to them and use it to engage in discussion. The better informed your patients are, the more likely they will evaluate you favorably, and the more likely they are to adhere to your advice.

• Complete diagnoses and write any prescriptions while in the room. This is a wonderful opportunity to engage with your patients on the risks and benefits of what you recommend, to review your specific instructions, and to allow them to see their diagnoses written out. Close with a printed copy of what just transpired. The act of giving something tangible makes the encounter feel complete, while also increasing patients’ retention of key information and their likelihood of following up as directed.

As more young physicians join us in the workforce, we know that it doesn’t matter much if you grew up with Facebook and Snapchat; using EMRs effectively is a learned skill that all of us can improve upon.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Fortunately, most endometrial cancers present at an early stage with excellent overall survival – approximately 85% – in clinical stage I disease. Since 1988, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of endometrial cancer has required surgical staging reflecting increasing data on the prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis and the treatment implications for node positive cancers.

Indeed, lymph nodes represent the most common location for extrauterine spread in endometrial cancer. The lymphatic drainage from the uterus is to both the pelvic and the para-aortic lymph nodes. Lymphatic channels from the uterus can drain directly from the fundus via the infundibulopelvic ligament to the aortic lymph node chain, thereby bypassing the pelvic lymph nodes. As a result, there is a 2%-3% risk of isolated aortic metastasis with negative pelvic lymph nodes.

The extent of lymph node evaluation required for staging is debatable. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend complete hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and additional procedures based on preoperative and intraoperative findings. During surgery, the surgeon should evaluate all peritoneal surfaces and the retroperitoneal lymphatic chains for abnormalities. All suspicious lymph nodes should be removed, but the extent of lymphadenectomy should be based on the NCCN guidelines.¹ The NCCN offers the option for use of sentinel lymph node evaluation with adherence to specific staging algorithms for this technology.

Proponents of lymphadenectomy cite the need for accurate staging to guide adjuvant therapies, to provide prognostic information, and to eradicate metastatic lymph nodes with possible therapeutic benefit. However, criticisms of lymphadenectomy include a lack of randomized studies demonstrating a therapeutic benefit and the morbidity of lymphedema with its corresponding quality of life and cost implications. As a result, practices regarding lymph node evaluation vary widely.

There is conflicting data on whether there is a therapeutic benefit to performing lymphadenectomy. Retrospective studies have shown a benefit, but this was not seen in two prospective trials. There appears to be clear benefit for debulking of clinically enlarged nodal metastasis,^2,3 and likely benefit to resection of microscopic metastasis, particularly with combined pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancers.^4,5,6,7,8

The ASTEC trial by Kitchener et al and an Italian collaborative trial by Benedetti et al, however, both evaluated the role of lymph node dissection in predominantly low-risk endometrial cancer and found no benefit.^9,10 Both studies documented no difference in overall survival, but increased morbidity with lymphadenectomy. No prospective trials have evaluated the role of lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancers.

Universal use of complete lymphadenectomy in all patients with endometrial cancer would subject a large percent of low risk patients to undo surgical risk. The two most commonly utilized strategies are risk factor based lymphadenectomy and sentinel lymph node evaluation.

Tumors are considered low risk if they are less than 2cm in size, grade 1 or 2, and superficially invasive (less than 50% myometrial invasion).¹¹ The risk of lymph node metastasis in these patients was exceedingly low with no lymph node metastasis detect in more than 400 women who prospectively underwent this evaluation, thus lymphadenectomy can be safely avoided. Utilizing risk factor based lymphadenectomy does require the availability of reliable frozen section pathology evaluation, which may be a limitation for some institutions.

A key argument against routine use of systematic lymphadenectomy is the concern for postoperative complications and lymphedema. The estimated incidence of lymphedema following lymphadenectomy is 20%-30%.¹² However, there are challenges in studying lymphedema that likely limit our understanding of the true incidence. The ASTEC trial and Italian cooperative trial have demonstrated that there is an eight-fold increased risk of lymphedema in women who undergo lymphadenectomy, compared with those who do not.¹³ The development of lymphedema requires ongoing treatment with associated costs of care. Thus, the selective lymphadenectomy or sentinel nodes have the ability to reduce healthcare costs.¹⁴ Sentinel lymph nodes will be covered in Part Two of this article.

References

1. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):248-80.

2. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):689-95.

3. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003 Sep-Oct;13(5):664-72.

4. Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Jan;56(1):29-33.

5. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 1;23(16):3668-75.

6. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1165-72.

7. Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Dec;71(3):340-3.

8. Cancer. 2006 Oct 15;107(8):1823-30.

9. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36.

10. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16.

11. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8.

12. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;124(2 Pt 1):307-15.

13. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 21;(9):CD007585.

14. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):518-24.

Dr. Gehrig is professor and director of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Clark is a fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. They reported having no financial disclosures relevant to this column. Email them at [email protected].

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Fortunately, most endometrial cancers present at an early stage with excellent overall survival – approximately 85% – in clinical stage I disease. Since 1988, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of endometrial cancer has required surgical staging reflecting increasing data on the prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis and the treatment implications for node positive cancers.

Indeed, lymph nodes represent the most common location for extrauterine spread in endometrial cancer. The lymphatic drainage from the uterus is to both the pelvic and the para-aortic lymph nodes. Lymphatic channels from the uterus can drain directly from the fundus via the infundibulopelvic ligament to the aortic lymph node chain, thereby bypassing the pelvic lymph nodes. As a result, there is a 2%-3% risk of isolated aortic metastasis with negative pelvic lymph nodes.

The extent of lymph node evaluation required for staging is debatable. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend complete hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and additional procedures based on preoperative and intraoperative findings. During surgery, the surgeon should evaluate all peritoneal surfaces and the retroperitoneal lymphatic chains for abnormalities. All suspicious lymph nodes should be removed, but the extent of lymphadenectomy should be based on the NCCN guidelines.¹ The NCCN offers the option for use of sentinel lymph node evaluation with adherence to specific staging algorithms for this technology.

Proponents of lymphadenectomy cite the need for accurate staging to guide adjuvant therapies, to provide prognostic information, and to eradicate metastatic lymph nodes with possible therapeutic benefit. However, criticisms of lymphadenectomy include a lack of randomized studies demonstrating a therapeutic benefit and the morbidity of lymphedema with its corresponding quality of life and cost implications. As a result, practices regarding lymph node evaluation vary widely.

There is conflicting data on whether there is a therapeutic benefit to performing lymphadenectomy. Retrospective studies have shown a benefit, but this was not seen in two prospective trials. There appears to be clear benefit for debulking of clinically enlarged nodal metastasis,^2,3 and likely benefit to resection of microscopic metastasis, particularly with combined pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancers.^4,5,6,7,8

The ASTEC trial by Kitchener et al and an Italian collaborative trial by Benedetti et al, however, both evaluated the role of lymph node dissection in predominantly low-risk endometrial cancer and found no benefit.^9,10 Both studies documented no difference in overall survival, but increased morbidity with lymphadenectomy. No prospective trials have evaluated the role of lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancers.

Universal use of complete lymphadenectomy in all patients with endometrial cancer would subject a large percent of low risk patients to undo surgical risk. The two most commonly utilized strategies are risk factor based lymphadenectomy and sentinel lymph node evaluation.

Tumors are considered low risk if they are less than 2cm in size, grade 1 or 2, and superficially invasive (less than 50% myometrial invasion).¹¹ The risk of lymph node metastasis in these patients was exceedingly low with no lymph node metastasis detect in more than 400 women who prospectively underwent this evaluation, thus lymphadenectomy can be safely avoided. Utilizing risk factor based lymphadenectomy does require the availability of reliable frozen section pathology evaluation, which may be a limitation for some institutions.

A key argument against routine use of systematic lymphadenectomy is the concern for postoperative complications and lymphedema. The estimated incidence of lymphedema following lymphadenectomy is 20%-30%.¹² However, there are challenges in studying lymphedema that likely limit our understanding of the true incidence. The ASTEC trial and Italian cooperative trial have demonstrated that there is an eight-fold increased risk of lymphedema in women who undergo lymphadenectomy, compared with those who do not.¹³ The development of lymphedema requires ongoing treatment with associated costs of care. Thus, the selective lymphadenectomy or sentinel nodes have the ability to reduce healthcare costs.¹⁴ Sentinel lymph nodes will be covered in Part Two of this article.

References

1. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):248-80.

2. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):689-95.

3. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003 Sep-Oct;13(5):664-72.

4. Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Jan;56(1):29-33.

5. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 1;23(16):3668-75.

6. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1165-72.

7. Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Dec;71(3):340-3.

8. Cancer. 2006 Oct 15;107(8):1823-30.

9. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36.

10. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16.

11. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8.

12. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;124(2 Pt 1):307-15.

13. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 21;(9):CD007585.

14. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):518-24.

Dr. Gehrig is professor and director of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Clark is a fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. They reported having no financial disclosures relevant to this column. Email them at [email protected].

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Fortunately, most endometrial cancers present at an early stage with excellent overall survival – approximately 85% – in clinical stage I disease. Since 1988, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of endometrial cancer has required surgical staging reflecting increasing data on the prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis and the treatment implications for node positive cancers.

Indeed, lymph nodes represent the most common location for extrauterine spread in endometrial cancer. The lymphatic drainage from the uterus is to both the pelvic and the para-aortic lymph nodes. Lymphatic channels from the uterus can drain directly from the fundus via the infundibulopelvic ligament to the aortic lymph node chain, thereby bypassing the pelvic lymph nodes. As a result, there is a 2%-3% risk of isolated aortic metastasis with negative pelvic lymph nodes.

The extent of lymph node evaluation required for staging is debatable. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend complete hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and additional procedures based on preoperative and intraoperative findings. During surgery, the surgeon should evaluate all peritoneal surfaces and the retroperitoneal lymphatic chains for abnormalities. All suspicious lymph nodes should be removed, but the extent of lymphadenectomy should be based on the NCCN guidelines.¹ The NCCN offers the option for use of sentinel lymph node evaluation with adherence to specific staging algorithms for this technology.

Proponents of lymphadenectomy cite the need for accurate staging to guide adjuvant therapies, to provide prognostic information, and to eradicate metastatic lymph nodes with possible therapeutic benefit. However, criticisms of lymphadenectomy include a lack of randomized studies demonstrating a therapeutic benefit and the morbidity of lymphedema with its corresponding quality of life and cost implications. As a result, practices regarding lymph node evaluation vary widely.

There is conflicting data on whether there is a therapeutic benefit to performing lymphadenectomy. Retrospective studies have shown a benefit, but this was not seen in two prospective trials. There appears to be clear benefit for debulking of clinically enlarged nodal metastasis,^2,3 and likely benefit to resection of microscopic metastasis, particularly with combined pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancers.^4,5,6,7,8

The ASTEC trial by Kitchener et al and an Italian collaborative trial by Benedetti et al, however, both evaluated the role of lymph node dissection in predominantly low-risk endometrial cancer and found no benefit.^9,10 Both studies documented no difference in overall survival, but increased morbidity with lymphadenectomy. No prospective trials have evaluated the role of lymphadenectomy in high-risk endometrial cancers.

Universal use of complete lymphadenectomy in all patients with endometrial cancer would subject a large percent of low risk patients to undo surgical risk. The two most commonly utilized strategies are risk factor based lymphadenectomy and sentinel lymph node evaluation.

Tumors are considered low risk if they are less than 2cm in size, grade 1 or 2, and superficially invasive (less than 50% myometrial invasion).¹¹ The risk of lymph node metastasis in these patients was exceedingly low with no lymph node metastasis detect in more than 400 women who prospectively underwent this evaluation, thus lymphadenectomy can be safely avoided. Utilizing risk factor based lymphadenectomy does require the availability of reliable frozen section pathology evaluation, which may be a limitation for some institutions.

A key argument against routine use of systematic lymphadenectomy is the concern for postoperative complications and lymphedema. The estimated incidence of lymphedema following lymphadenectomy is 20%-30%.¹² However, there are challenges in studying lymphedema that likely limit our understanding of the true incidence. The ASTEC trial and Italian cooperative trial have demonstrated that there is an eight-fold increased risk of lymphedema in women who undergo lymphadenectomy, compared with those who do not.¹³ The development of lymphedema requires ongoing treatment with associated costs of care. Thus, the selective lymphadenectomy or sentinel nodes have the ability to reduce healthcare costs.¹⁴ Sentinel lymph nodes will be covered in Part Two of this article.

References

1. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):248-80.

2. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):689-95.

3. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003 Sep-Oct;13(5):664-72.

4. Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Jan;56(1):29-33.

5. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 1;23(16):3668-75.

6. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1165-72.

7. Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Dec;71(3):340-3.

8. Cancer. 2006 Oct 15;107(8):1823-30.

9. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36.

10. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16.

11. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8.

12. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;124(2 Pt 1):307-15.

13. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 21;(9):CD007585.

14. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):518-24.

Dr. Gehrig is professor and director of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Clark is a fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. They reported having no financial disclosures relevant to this column. Email them at [email protected].

Available in the diet through fresh vegetables (particularly green leafy vegetables), vegetable oils, grains, nuts, seeds, corn, soy, whole wheat flour, margarine, and in some meat and dairy products, vitamin E, or tocopherol, is the primary lipid-soluble antioxidant found in human skin (via sebum), membranes, plasma, and tissues that protects cells from oxidative stress.^1-4 Vitamin E is often used to treat minor burns, surgical scars, and other wounds, although the Food and Drug Administration has not approved its use for skin conditions.

In 1938, Karrer, Fritzsche, Ringier, and Salomon became the first to synthesize alpha-tocopherol,^5,6 the main biologically active form of vitamin E.⁷ In the 1940s, vitamin E was labeled a “chain-breaking” antioxidant for its role in hindering the chain reaction induced by free radicals, and it is known to protect cutaneous cell membranes from peroxidation.⁸ Most topical formulations contain synthetic laboratory-made alpha-tocopherol or one of its many esters or ethers. As an ingredient in skin care agents, significant evidence has been amassed to suggest that topically applied vitamin E confers photoprotective activity against erythema, edema, sun burn cell formation, and other indicators of acute UV-induced damage as well as responses to chronic UVA and UVB exposure, including skin wrinkling and skin cancer.^2,9-14 This column will focus on the topical applications of vitamin E.

Topical uses and findings

The lipophilic nature of vitamin E makes it suitable for topical application and percutaneous absorption through the skin.^9,15 Vitamin E is generally used in 1%-5% concentrations alpha-tocopherol or tocopherol acetate in over-the-counter products.¹⁶ When topically applied, vitamin E has been shown to hydrate the stratum corneum (SC) and improve water-binding capacity.¹⁶ It is also considered an effective ingredient for imparting skin protection and treating atopic dermatitis (AD).²

In 2005, Ekanayake-Mudiyanselage et al. studied whether one application of an alpha-tocopherol–enriched rinse-off product could effectively lead to deposition of alpha-tocopherol on the SC in 13 volunteers. The researchers found that the alpha-tocopherol product raised alpha-tocopherol levels in surface lipids, which remained consistent for at least 24 hours, whereas such levels were reduced in the alpha-tocopherol–free vehicle control group. The alpha-tocopherol rinse-off product also significantly inhibited photo-oxidation of squalene.⁷

A 2009 6-month study in healthy human volunteers with actinic keratoses demonstrated that while topically applied dl-alpha-tocopherol, of which cutaneous levels were significantly increased at the end of the study, did not significantly change already present lesions, alterations in polyamine metabolism revealed that squamous cell carcinogenesis potential was significantly diminished.¹⁷

Patrizi et al., in a 2015 randomized, controlled, double-blind, single center study, assessed the safety and efficacy of MD2011001 cream (a nonsteroidal topical cream including vitamin E, epigallocatechin gallate and grape seed procyanidins) versus placebo, in 44 patients with mild to moderate AD in the perioral/periocular area and/or the neck. The researchers noted a significantly more rapid reduction in affected surface area with the test formulation, compared with placebo; the product was found to be well tolerated and safe as well as effective for mild to moderate AD.¹⁸

Also that year, Ruiz-Tovar et al. performed a prospective randomized clinical trial in 60 patients, showing that topical vitamin E ointment reduced postoperative pain.¹⁹

The vitamin C, vitamin E, ferulic acid combination

Vitamin E is perceived to be more effective when used in combination with other antioxidant ingredients. Some data suggest a cumulative benefit derived from using oral and topical antioxidant products in combination, including vitamins C and E in particular.^20-22 Because vitamin C can restore oxidized vitamin E, combining the antioxidants is a stabilizing factor in topical formulations.^23,24 Further, ferulic acid has been shown to stabilize both vitamins, with the topical combination yielding photoprotective effects against UVB exposure, including the significant reduction in thymine dimer formation.^9,24,25

A small study of nine patients conducted by Murray et al. in 2008 found that a stable topical preparation of 15% l-ascorbic acid, 1% alpha-tocopherol, and 0.5% ferulic acid protected human skin in vivo from UV-induced damage, specifically erythema and apoptosis. The formulation also suppressed p53 activation and limited thymine dimer mutations, which are associated with skin cancer.²⁶

Waibel et al. conducted a double-blind, prospective, single-center, randomized split-face trial in 2015 to study whether laser-assisted delivery of vitamins C and E and ferulic acid after fractional ablative laser procedures to treat photodamage could enhance wound healing. Fifteen healthy men and women (aged 30-55 years) were treated with the combination formulation on one side of the face and vehicle on the other side within 2 minutes of receiving fractional ablative CO₂ laser surgery. They also received daily treatments and evaluations during days 1 through 7 of healing. Edema was found to be diminished on the sides treated with the antioxidant combination, compared with vehicle on day 7, and erythema, on days 3 and 5.²⁷

Other vitamin E combinations

In 2014, Farris et al. found vitamin E to be a key ingredient, along with resveratrol and baicalin, in a nighttime antioxidant formulation that netted a statistically significant improvement in skin rejuvenation, specifically ameliorating fine lines and wrinkles, skin firmness, skin elasticity, skin laxity, hyperpigmentation, radiance, and skin roughness over 3 months, compared with baseline.²⁸

Pereira et al. reported in 2014 that they found that the topical application of polymeric bioadhesive films containing aloe vera and vitamin E acetate appear to be an effective approach to burn treatment.²⁹

A 2015 randomized, controlled, double-blind prospective study in 30 healthy volunteers also indicated that an SPF 30 sunscreen supplemented with an antioxidant combination containing grape seed extract, vitamin E, coenzyme Q10, and vitamin C effectively protected skin against infrared A radiation damage, unlike the use of the SPF 30 product without the antioxidant cocktail.³⁰

Conclusion

Combining vitamin E with other antioxidants appears to enhance its bioactivity and, likely, that of the other interacting antioxidants. The potential therapeutic benefits of vitamin E in preventing and treating skin cancer and photoaging remain an important focus of research. As an ingredient in topical anti-aging skin care preparations, vitamin E displays emollient properties, and is stable, easy to formulate, and relatively inexpensive, making it a popular additive. More controlled trials are necessary to fully clarify the role of vitamin E in treating various dermatoses.

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever. She also developed and owns the Baumann Skin Type Solution skin typing systems and related products.

References

1. J Mol Med (Berl). 1995 Jan;73(1):7-17.

2. Dermatol Surg. 2005 Jul;31(7 Pt 2):805-13.

3. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2004 Jul;3(3):149-55.

4. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2001;14 Suppl 1:87-91.

5. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jul;46(1 Suppl):183-6.

6. Nutr Rev. 2012 Sep;70(9):483-90.

7. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2005 Jan-Feb;18(1):20-6.

8. Ann Nutr Metab. 2012;61(3):207-12.

9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 Jun;48(6):866-74.

10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Sep;100(4):973-80.

11. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996 Jul;76(4):264-8.

12. J Invest Dermatol. 1995 Apr;104(4):484-8.

13. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 1990 Apr;7(2):56-62.

14. Photodermatol. 1989 Oct;6(5):228-33.

15. Drug Metab Rev. 2000 Aug-Nov;32(3-4):413-20.

16. Clin Dermatol. 2009 Sep-Oct;27(5):469-74.

17. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009 Apr;2(4):394-400.

18. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015 Dec 10:1-5. [Epub ahead of print].

19. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jul;31(7):1371-2.

20. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 15:307;2002.

21. Biofactors. 2003;18(1-4):289-97.

22. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008 Jul;7(7 Suppl):s2-6.

23. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1993 Sep;71(9):725-31.

24. PLoS One. 2013 May 14;8(5):e63809.

25. J Invest Dermatol. 2005 Oct;125(4):826-32.

26. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Sep;59(3):418-25.

27. Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Mar;48(3):238-44.

28. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Dec;13(12):1467-72.

29. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:641590.

30. Photochem Photobiol. 2015 Jan-Feb;91(1):248-50.

Available in the diet through fresh vegetables (particularly green leafy vegetables), vegetable oils, grains, nuts, seeds, corn, soy, whole wheat flour, margarine, and in some meat and dairy products, vitamin E, or tocopherol, is the primary lipid-soluble antioxidant found in human skin (via sebum), membranes, plasma, and tissues that protects cells from oxidative stress.^1-4 Vitamin E is often used to treat minor burns, surgical scars, and other wounds, although the Food and Drug Administration has not approved its use for skin conditions.

In 1938, Karrer, Fritzsche, Ringier, and Salomon became the first to synthesize alpha-tocopherol,^5,6 the main biologically active form of vitamin E.⁷ In the 1940s, vitamin E was labeled a “chain-breaking” antioxidant for its role in hindering the chain reaction induced by free radicals, and it is known to protect cutaneous cell membranes from peroxidation.⁸ Most topical formulations contain synthetic laboratory-made alpha-tocopherol or one of its many esters or ethers. As an ingredient in skin care agents, significant evidence has been amassed to suggest that topically applied vitamin E confers photoprotective activity against erythema, edema, sun burn cell formation, and other indicators of acute UV-induced damage as well as responses to chronic UVA and UVB exposure, including skin wrinkling and skin cancer.^2,9-14 This column will focus on the topical applications of vitamin E.

Topical uses and findings

The lipophilic nature of vitamin E makes it suitable for topical application and percutaneous absorption through the skin.^9,15 Vitamin E is generally used in 1%-5% concentrations alpha-tocopherol or tocopherol acetate in over-the-counter products.¹⁶ When topically applied, vitamin E has been shown to hydrate the stratum corneum (SC) and improve water-binding capacity.¹⁶ It is also considered an effective ingredient for imparting skin protection and treating atopic dermatitis (AD).²

In 2005, Ekanayake-Mudiyanselage et al. studied whether one application of an alpha-tocopherol–enriched rinse-off product could effectively lead to deposition of alpha-tocopherol on the SC in 13 volunteers. The researchers found that the alpha-tocopherol product raised alpha-tocopherol levels in surface lipids, which remained consistent for at least 24 hours, whereas such levels were reduced in the alpha-tocopherol–free vehicle control group. The alpha-tocopherol rinse-off product also significantly inhibited photo-oxidation of squalene.⁷

A 2009 6-month study in healthy human volunteers with actinic keratoses demonstrated that while topically applied dl-alpha-tocopherol, of which cutaneous levels were significantly increased at the end of the study, did not significantly change already present lesions, alterations in polyamine metabolism revealed that squamous cell carcinogenesis potential was significantly diminished.¹⁷

Patrizi et al., in a 2015 randomized, controlled, double-blind, single center study, assessed the safety and efficacy of MD2011001 cream (a nonsteroidal topical cream including vitamin E, epigallocatechin gallate and grape seed procyanidins) versus placebo, in 44 patients with mild to moderate AD in the perioral/periocular area and/or the neck. The researchers noted a significantly more rapid reduction in affected surface area with the test formulation, compared with placebo; the product was found to be well tolerated and safe as well as effective for mild to moderate AD.¹⁸

Also that year, Ruiz-Tovar et al. performed a prospective randomized clinical trial in 60 patients, showing that topical vitamin E ointment reduced postoperative pain.¹⁹

The vitamin C, vitamin E, ferulic acid combination

Vitamin E is perceived to be more effective when used in combination with other antioxidant ingredients. Some data suggest a cumulative benefit derived from using oral and topical antioxidant products in combination, including vitamins C and E in particular.^20-22 Because vitamin C can restore oxidized vitamin E, combining the antioxidants is a stabilizing factor in topical formulations.^23,24 Further, ferulic acid has been shown to stabilize both vitamins, with the topical combination yielding photoprotective effects against UVB exposure, including the significant reduction in thymine dimer formation.^9,24,25

A small study of nine patients conducted by Murray et al. in 2008 found that a stable topical preparation of 15% l-ascorbic acid, 1% alpha-tocopherol, and 0.5% ferulic acid protected human skin in vivo from UV-induced damage, specifically erythema and apoptosis. The formulation also suppressed p53 activation and limited thymine dimer mutations, which are associated with skin cancer.²⁶

Waibel et al. conducted a double-blind, prospective, single-center, randomized split-face trial in 2015 to study whether laser-assisted delivery of vitamins C and E and ferulic acid after fractional ablative laser procedures to treat photodamage could enhance wound healing. Fifteen healthy men and women (aged 30-55 years) were treated with the combination formulation on one side of the face and vehicle on the other side within 2 minutes of receiving fractional ablative CO₂ laser surgery. They also received daily treatments and evaluations during days 1 through 7 of healing. Edema was found to be diminished on the sides treated with the antioxidant combination, compared with vehicle on day 7, and erythema, on days 3 and 5.²⁷

Other vitamin E combinations

In 2014, Farris et al. found vitamin E to be a key ingredient, along with resveratrol and baicalin, in a nighttime antioxidant formulation that netted a statistically significant improvement in skin rejuvenation, specifically ameliorating fine lines and wrinkles, skin firmness, skin elasticity, skin laxity, hyperpigmentation, radiance, and skin roughness over 3 months, compared with baseline.²⁸

Pereira et al. reported in 2014 that they found that the topical application of polymeric bioadhesive films containing aloe vera and vitamin E acetate appear to be an effective approach to burn treatment.²⁹

A 2015 randomized, controlled, double-blind prospective study in 30 healthy volunteers also indicated that an SPF 30 sunscreen supplemented with an antioxidant combination containing grape seed extract, vitamin E, coenzyme Q10, and vitamin C effectively protected skin against infrared A radiation damage, unlike the use of the SPF 30 product without the antioxidant cocktail.³⁰

Conclusion

Combining vitamin E with other antioxidants appears to enhance its bioactivity and, likely, that of the other interacting antioxidants. The potential therapeutic benefits of vitamin E in preventing and treating skin cancer and photoaging remain an important focus of research. As an ingredient in topical anti-aging skin care preparations, vitamin E displays emollient properties, and is stable, easy to formulate, and relatively inexpensive, making it a popular additive. More controlled trials are necessary to fully clarify the role of vitamin E in treating various dermatoses.

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever. She also developed and owns the Baumann Skin Type Solution skin typing systems and related products.

References

1. J Mol Med (Berl). 1995 Jan;73(1):7-17.

2. Dermatol Surg. 2005 Jul;31(7 Pt 2):805-13.

3. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2004 Jul;3(3):149-55.

4. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2001;14 Suppl 1:87-91.

5. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jul;46(1 Suppl):183-6.

6. Nutr Rev. 2012 Sep;70(9):483-90.

7. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2005 Jan-Feb;18(1):20-6.

8. Ann Nutr Metab. 2012;61(3):207-12.

9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 Jun;48(6):866-74.

10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Sep;100(4):973-80.

11. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996 Jul;76(4):264-8.

12. J Invest Dermatol. 1995 Apr;104(4):484-8.

13. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 1990 Apr;7(2):56-62.

14. Photodermatol. 1989 Oct;6(5):228-33.

15. Drug Metab Rev. 2000 Aug-Nov;32(3-4):413-20.

16. Clin Dermatol. 2009 Sep-Oct;27(5):469-74.

17. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009 Apr;2(4):394-400.

18. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015 Dec 10:1-5. [Epub ahead of print].

19. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jul;31(7):1371-2.

20. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 15:307;2002.

21. Biofactors. 2003;18(1-4):289-97.

22. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008 Jul;7(7 Suppl):s2-6.

23. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1993 Sep;71(9):725-31.

24. PLoS One. 2013 May 14;8(5):e63809.

25. J Invest Dermatol. 2005 Oct;125(4):826-32.

26. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Sep;59(3):418-25.

27. Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Mar;48(3):238-44.

28. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Dec;13(12):1467-72.

29. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:641590.

30. Photochem Photobiol. 2015 Jan-Feb;91(1):248-50.

Available in the diet through fresh vegetables (particularly green leafy vegetables), vegetable oils, grains, nuts, seeds, corn, soy, whole wheat flour, margarine, and in some meat and dairy products, vitamin E, or tocopherol, is the primary lipid-soluble antioxidant found in human skin (via sebum), membranes, plasma, and tissues that protects cells from oxidative stress.^1-4 Vitamin E is often used to treat minor burns, surgical scars, and other wounds, although the Food and Drug Administration has not approved its use for skin conditions.

In 1938, Karrer, Fritzsche, Ringier, and Salomon became the first to synthesize alpha-tocopherol,^5,6 the main biologically active form of vitamin E.⁷ In the 1940s, vitamin E was labeled a “chain-breaking” antioxidant for its role in hindering the chain reaction induced by free radicals, and it is known to protect cutaneous cell membranes from peroxidation.⁸ Most topical formulations contain synthetic laboratory-made alpha-tocopherol or one of its many esters or ethers. As an ingredient in skin care agents, significant evidence has been amassed to suggest that topically applied vitamin E confers photoprotective activity against erythema, edema, sun burn cell formation, and other indicators of acute UV-induced damage as well as responses to chronic UVA and UVB exposure, including skin wrinkling and skin cancer.^2,9-14 This column will focus on the topical applications of vitamin E.

Topical uses and findings

The lipophilic nature of vitamin E makes it suitable for topical application and percutaneous absorption through the skin.^9,15 Vitamin E is generally used in 1%-5% concentrations alpha-tocopherol or tocopherol acetate in over-the-counter products.¹⁶ When topically applied, vitamin E has been shown to hydrate the stratum corneum (SC) and improve water-binding capacity.¹⁶ It is also considered an effective ingredient for imparting skin protection and treating atopic dermatitis (AD).²

In 2005, Ekanayake-Mudiyanselage et al. studied whether one application of an alpha-tocopherol–enriched rinse-off product could effectively lead to deposition of alpha-tocopherol on the SC in 13 volunteers. The researchers found that the alpha-tocopherol product raised alpha-tocopherol levels in surface lipids, which remained consistent for at least 24 hours, whereas such levels were reduced in the alpha-tocopherol–free vehicle control group. The alpha-tocopherol rinse-off product also significantly inhibited photo-oxidation of squalene.⁷

A 2009 6-month study in healthy human volunteers with actinic keratoses demonstrated that while topically applied dl-alpha-tocopherol, of which cutaneous levels were significantly increased at the end of the study, did not significantly change already present lesions, alterations in polyamine metabolism revealed that squamous cell carcinogenesis potential was significantly diminished.¹⁷

Patrizi et al., in a 2015 randomized, controlled, double-blind, single center study, assessed the safety and efficacy of MD2011001 cream (a nonsteroidal topical cream including vitamin E, epigallocatechin gallate and grape seed procyanidins) versus placebo, in 44 patients with mild to moderate AD in the perioral/periocular area and/or the neck. The researchers noted a significantly more rapid reduction in affected surface area with the test formulation, compared with placebo; the product was found to be well tolerated and safe as well as effective for mild to moderate AD.¹⁸

Also that year, Ruiz-Tovar et al. performed a prospective randomized clinical trial in 60 patients, showing that topical vitamin E ointment reduced postoperative pain.¹⁹

The vitamin C, vitamin E, ferulic acid combination

Vitamin E is perceived to be more effective when used in combination with other antioxidant ingredients. Some data suggest a cumulative benefit derived from using oral and topical antioxidant products in combination, including vitamins C and E in particular.^20-22 Because vitamin C can restore oxidized vitamin E, combining the antioxidants is a stabilizing factor in topical formulations.^23,24 Further, ferulic acid has been shown to stabilize both vitamins, with the topical combination yielding photoprotective effects against UVB exposure, including the significant reduction in thymine dimer formation.^9,24,25

A small study of nine patients conducted by Murray et al. in 2008 found that a stable topical preparation of 15% l-ascorbic acid, 1% alpha-tocopherol, and 0.5% ferulic acid protected human skin in vivo from UV-induced damage, specifically erythema and apoptosis. The formulation also suppressed p53 activation and limited thymine dimer mutations, which are associated with skin cancer.²⁶

Waibel et al. conducted a double-blind, prospective, single-center, randomized split-face trial in 2015 to study whether laser-assisted delivery of vitamins C and E and ferulic acid after fractional ablative laser procedures to treat photodamage could enhance wound healing. Fifteen healthy men and women (aged 30-55 years) were treated with the combination formulation on one side of the face and vehicle on the other side within 2 minutes of receiving fractional ablative CO₂ laser surgery. They also received daily treatments and evaluations during days 1 through 7 of healing. Edema was found to be diminished on the sides treated with the antioxidant combination, compared with vehicle on day 7, and erythema, on days 3 and 5.²⁷

Other vitamin E combinations

In 2014, Farris et al. found vitamin E to be a key ingredient, along with resveratrol and baicalin, in a nighttime antioxidant formulation that netted a statistically significant improvement in skin rejuvenation, specifically ameliorating fine lines and wrinkles, skin firmness, skin elasticity, skin laxity, hyperpigmentation, radiance, and skin roughness over 3 months, compared with baseline.²⁸

Pereira et al. reported in 2014 that they found that the topical application of polymeric bioadhesive films containing aloe vera and vitamin E acetate appear to be an effective approach to burn treatment.²⁹

A 2015 randomized, controlled, double-blind prospective study in 30 healthy volunteers also indicated that an SPF 30 sunscreen supplemented with an antioxidant combination containing grape seed extract, vitamin E, coenzyme Q10, and vitamin C effectively protected skin against infrared A radiation damage, unlike the use of the SPF 30 product without the antioxidant cocktail.³⁰

Conclusion

Combining vitamin E with other antioxidants appears to enhance its bioactivity and, likely, that of the other interacting antioxidants. The potential therapeutic benefits of vitamin E in preventing and treating skin cancer and photoaging remain an important focus of research. As an ingredient in topical anti-aging skin care preparations, vitamin E displays emollient properties, and is stable, easy to formulate, and relatively inexpensive, making it a popular additive. More controlled trials are necessary to fully clarify the role of vitamin E in treating various dermatoses.

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever. She also developed and owns the Baumann Skin Type Solution skin typing systems and related products.

References

1. J Mol Med (Berl). 1995 Jan;73(1):7-17.

2. Dermatol Surg. 2005 Jul;31(7 Pt 2):805-13.

3. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2004 Jul;3(3):149-55.

4. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2001;14 Suppl 1:87-91.

5. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jul;46(1 Suppl):183-6.

6. Nutr Rev. 2012 Sep;70(9):483-90.

7. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2005 Jan-Feb;18(1):20-6.

8. Ann Nutr Metab. 2012;61(3):207-12.

9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 Jun;48(6):866-74.

10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Sep;100(4):973-80.

11. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996 Jul;76(4):264-8.

12. J Invest Dermatol. 1995 Apr;104(4):484-8.

13. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 1990 Apr;7(2):56-62.

14. Photodermatol. 1989 Oct;6(5):228-33.

15. Drug Metab Rev. 2000 Aug-Nov;32(3-4):413-20.

16. Clin Dermatol. 2009 Sep-Oct;27(5):469-74.

17. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009 Apr;2(4):394-400.

18. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015 Dec 10:1-5. [Epub ahead of print].

19. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jul;31(7):1371-2.

20. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 15:307;2002.

21. Biofactors. 2003;18(1-4):289-97.

22. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008 Jul;7(7 Suppl):s2-6.

23. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1993 Sep;71(9):725-31.

24. PLoS One. 2013 May 14;8(5):e63809.

25. J Invest Dermatol. 2005 Oct;125(4):826-32.

26. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Sep;59(3):418-25.

27. Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Mar;48(3):238-44.

28. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Dec;13(12):1467-72.

29. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:641590.

30. Photochem Photobiol. 2015 Jan-Feb;91(1):248-50.

Recently, I was out on a Friday night with a friend who is a resident in another program. I hadn’t seen her in a very long time because of our hectic schedules. Around 10 p.m., she received a text from her attending asking her if she had left the scripts ready for the patient who was leaving on Monday.

Much has been written about professional boundaries and bosses texting their employees. For most jobs, a boss texting after hours over nonurgent matters is completely out of line. But in the medical field, there are no limits. People say, “Oh well, it’s the physician life.” Well maybe if we had more professional boundaries, our quality of life would be better. Maybe there wouldn’t be such a huge rate of burnout.

I encourage physicians to remember to contact your resident and coworkers during business hours. If the matter is not placing patients in danger, it can wait till the next morning. Nobody wants to pick up his phone in the middle of dinner to deal with patient care–related expectations that can be addressed the next business day.

Receiving a text brings all the stress of work back in the middle of our time off in which we are trying to take care of ourselves and the rest of our lives. It adds unnecessary stress to the overall high stress level and undermines our attempt to have a social life and meet a friend. A quick Internet search shows many blogs, journals, and different websites discussing this issue, but the voices of doctors and other health care providers are strangely silent on this topic.

I consider emails a more professional way of communicating than a text. I check my email often during a 24-hour period, and when I do, I’m ready for any potential information I might receive. I do not get notifications on my phone from my work email. But like my friend, I can’t avoid texts. We should have the opportunity to use our right to disconnect.

Some may argue, “Put your phone on silent if you don’t want to deal with it.” But not only do I use my phone for my life outside of work (as a resident, I make an effort to have one), but I want to be available for my peers and juniors when they are in the hospital. I want to be a resident my coworkers can text when they have a question and appreciate my advice. That is a decision I have made about the type of resident I want to be, and I am comfortable with it. Now if they text me asking a question that can wait till business hours the following day, they are crossing boundaries.

It might seem like a gray line. Somebody – maybe residency programs or our professional organizations – should address this so we have clear guidelines to protect our off-work time. Doesn’t our culture need to change the “physician life” so that we don’t bring our work responsibilities out for dinner on a Friday night? If the issue doesn’t need to be resolved quickly, it should be a given that texting is inappropriate.

Dr. Serrano is a PGY3 psychiatry resident at the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

Recently, I was out on a Friday night with a friend who is a resident in another program. I hadn’t seen her in a very long time because of our hectic schedules. Around 10 p.m., she received a text from her attending asking her if she had left the scripts ready for the patient who was leaving on Monday.

Much has been written about professional boundaries and bosses texting their employees. For most jobs, a boss texting after hours over nonurgent matters is completely out of line. But in the medical field, there are no limits. People say, “Oh well, it’s the physician life.” Well maybe if we had more professional boundaries, our quality of life would be better. Maybe there wouldn’t be such a huge rate of burnout.

I encourage physicians to remember to contact your resident and coworkers during business hours. If the matter is not placing patients in danger, it can wait till the next morning. Nobody wants to pick up his phone in the middle of dinner to deal with patient care–related expectations that can be addressed the next business day.

Receiving a text brings all the stress of work back in the middle of our time off in which we are trying to take care of ourselves and the rest of our lives. It adds unnecessary stress to the overall high stress level and undermines our attempt to have a social life and meet a friend. A quick Internet search shows many blogs, journals, and different websites discussing this issue, but the voices of doctors and other health care providers are strangely silent on this topic.

I consider emails a more professional way of communicating than a text. I check my email often during a 24-hour period, and when I do, I’m ready for any potential information I might receive. I do not get notifications on my phone from my work email. But like my friend, I can’t avoid texts. We should have the opportunity to use our right to disconnect.

Some may argue, “Put your phone on silent if you don’t want to deal with it.” But not only do I use my phone for my life outside of work (as a resident, I make an effort to have one), but I want to be available for my peers and juniors when they are in the hospital. I want to be a resident my coworkers can text when they have a question and appreciate my advice. That is a decision I have made about the type of resident I want to be, and I am comfortable with it. Now if they text me asking a question that can wait till business hours the following day, they are crossing boundaries.

It might seem like a gray line. Somebody – maybe residency programs or our professional organizations – should address this so we have clear guidelines to protect our off-work time. Doesn’t our culture need to change the “physician life” so that we don’t bring our work responsibilities out for dinner on a Friday night? If the issue doesn’t need to be resolved quickly, it should be a given that texting is inappropriate.

Dr. Serrano is a PGY3 psychiatry resident at the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

Recently, I was out on a Friday night with a friend who is a resident in another program. I hadn’t seen her in a very long time because of our hectic schedules. Around 10 p.m., she received a text from her attending asking her if she had left the scripts ready for the patient who was leaving on Monday.

Much has been written about professional boundaries and bosses texting their employees. For most jobs, a boss texting after hours over nonurgent matters is completely out of line. But in the medical field, there are no limits. People say, “Oh well, it’s the physician life.” Well maybe if we had more professional boundaries, our quality of life would be better. Maybe there wouldn’t be such a huge rate of burnout.

I encourage physicians to remember to contact your resident and coworkers during business hours. If the matter is not placing patients in danger, it can wait till the next morning. Nobody wants to pick up his phone in the middle of dinner to deal with patient care–related expectations that can be addressed the next business day.

Receiving a text brings all the stress of work back in the middle of our time off in which we are trying to take care of ourselves and the rest of our lives. It adds unnecessary stress to the overall high stress level and undermines our attempt to have a social life and meet a friend. A quick Internet search shows many blogs, journals, and different websites discussing this issue, but the voices of doctors and other health care providers are strangely silent on this topic.

I consider emails a more professional way of communicating than a text. I check my email often during a 24-hour period, and when I do, I’m ready for any potential information I might receive. I do not get notifications on my phone from my work email. But like my friend, I can’t avoid texts. We should have the opportunity to use our right to disconnect.

Some may argue, “Put your phone on silent if you don’t want to deal with it.” But not only do I use my phone for my life outside of work (as a resident, I make an effort to have one), but I want to be available for my peers and juniors when they are in the hospital. I want to be a resident my coworkers can text when they have a question and appreciate my advice. That is a decision I have made about the type of resident I want to be, and I am comfortable with it. Now if they text me asking a question that can wait till business hours the following day, they are crossing boundaries.

It might seem like a gray line. Somebody – maybe residency programs or our professional organizations – should address this so we have clear guidelines to protect our off-work time. Doesn’t our culture need to change the “physician life” so that we don’t bring our work responsibilities out for dinner on a Friday night? If the issue doesn’t need to be resolved quickly, it should be a given that texting is inappropriate.

Dr. Serrano is a PGY3 psychiatry resident at the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

Mobile phones became commonplace in just a few years and are now used everywhere, included remote areas of the world. These communication tools are used for personal and professional purposes, frequently by health care workers (HCWs) during care.

We and others believe that mobile phones improve the quality, rapidity, and efficiency of communication in health care settings and, therefore, improve the management of patients. In fact, professional mobile phones allow communication between HCWs anywhere in the hospital. In addition, personal mobile phones, frequently smartphones, allow the use of medical apps for evidence-based management of patients.

Mobile phones, both professional and personal, are used in close proximity to patients, as reported in behavioral studies. In a recent study we performed in a hospital setting (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May;22[5]:456.e1-e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.008), more than 60% of HCWs who participated declared using phones during care, and also declared that they had halted care to patients while answering a call.

Several studies have shown that mobile phones used at hospitals are contaminated by bacteria, including highly pathogenic ones, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter species, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Pseudomonas species, and coliforms. Research suggests that these devices may serve as a reservoir of bacteria known to cause nosocomial infections and may play a role in transmission of them to patients through the hands of HCWs.

For the first time, we demonstrated the presence of RNA of epidemic viruses such as rotavirus, influenza virus, syncytial respiratory virus, and metapneumovirus on mobile phones (professional and personal) held by HCWs. In our study, 38.5% of sampled mobile phones were contaminated with RNA from viruses. RNA of rotavirus was the most frequently-detected virus, mainly on phones sampled in the pediatric emergency ward. Interestingly, we found that HCWs in pediatric wards admitted disinfecting their mobile phones less frequently than did other HCWs we interviewed.

Epidemic viruses have already been discovered on other electronic device surfaces, such as keyboards, computers, and telephone handsets. However, in contrast to these other devices, mobile phones are mobile and could be shared and transported anywhere, including in close proximity to patients. Rotaviruses are frequently found on hospital surfaces several months after an epidemic period, after surfaces were cleaned. The high prevalence of rotavirus in pediatric ward patients during our study, and its capacity to persist in the environment, are probably the main factors that explain the high frequency of rotavirus RNA detection on mobile phones in our study.

This finding highlights the possible role of mobile phones in cross-transmission of epidemic viruses, with the transfer from nonporous fomites to fingers, and from fingers to fomites – including mobile phones. Due to the difficulty and fastidiousness of viral culture, the viruses were detected only by molecular biology; the viability of the viruses could not be demonstrated. However, we believe that cross-transmission of viruses may occur, notably in health care settings. The recently reported case of a 40-year-old Ugandan man who stole a phone from a patient with Ebola and contracted the disease, also supports this hypothesis.

We also demonstrated in our study that hand hygiene after the use of mobile phones does not seem to be systematic, even for HCWs continuing care that was in process before picking up their phones. Around 30% of HCWs declared that they never perform hand hygiene before or after handling mobile phones. In addition, more than 30% of HCWs admitted that they never disinfect their phones, even their professional ones; this lack of hygiene could contribute to the persistence of RNA of epidemic viruses.

Our study does not support banning the use of mobile phones in hospitals. We just want to make HCWs aware that mobile phones, which are part of our daily practice, can be contaminated by pathogens, notably viruses. The use of disinfection wipes to clean phones, together with adherence to hand hygiene, is crucial to prevent cross-transmission.

Frequent disinfection of personal and professional mobile phones needs to be promoted to reduce contamination of phones by viruses, especially during epidemics.

In practice, each clinician needs to remember that hand hygiene should be the last thing done before patient contact, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Touching a mobile phone could transfer bacteria or viruses onto hands, and we hypothesize that it could be a factor in cross-transmission of pathogens.

Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers, MD, PhD, is an infectious diseases specialist at the University Hospital of Saint-Étienne (France) and Sylvie Pillet, PharmD, PhD, is a virologist in the Laboratory of Infectious Agents and Hygiene, University Hospital of Saint-Étienne.

Mobile phones became commonplace in just a few years and are now used everywhere, included remote areas of the world. These communication tools are used for personal and professional purposes, frequently by health care workers (HCWs) during care.

We and others believe that mobile phones improve the quality, rapidity, and efficiency of communication in health care settings and, therefore, improve the management of patients. In fact, professional mobile phones allow communication between HCWs anywhere in the hospital. In addition, personal mobile phones, frequently smartphones, allow the use of medical apps for evidence-based management of patients.

Mobile phones, both professional and personal, are used in close proximity to patients, as reported in behavioral studies. In a recent study we performed in a hospital setting (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May;22[5]:456.e1-e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.008), more than 60% of HCWs who participated declared using phones during care, and also declared that they had halted care to patients while answering a call.

Several studies have shown that mobile phones used at hospitals are contaminated by bacteria, including highly pathogenic ones, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter species, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Pseudomonas species, and coliforms. Research suggests that these devices may serve as a reservoir of bacteria known to cause nosocomial infections and may play a role in transmission of them to patients through the hands of HCWs.

For the first time, we demonstrated the presence of RNA of epidemic viruses such as rotavirus, influenza virus, syncytial respiratory virus, and metapneumovirus on mobile phones (professional and personal) held by HCWs. In our study, 38.5% of sampled mobile phones were contaminated with RNA from viruses. RNA of rotavirus was the most frequently-detected virus, mainly on phones sampled in the pediatric emergency ward. Interestingly, we found that HCWs in pediatric wards admitted disinfecting their mobile phones less frequently than did other HCWs we interviewed.

Epidemic viruses have already been discovered on other electronic device surfaces, such as keyboards, computers, and telephone handsets. However, in contrast to these other devices, mobile phones are mobile and could be shared and transported anywhere, including in close proximity to patients. Rotaviruses are frequently found on hospital surfaces several months after an epidemic period, after surfaces were cleaned. The high prevalence of rotavirus in pediatric ward patients during our study, and its capacity to persist in the environment, are probably the main factors that explain the high frequency of rotavirus RNA detection on mobile phones in our study.

This finding highlights the possible role of mobile phones in cross-transmission of epidemic viruses, with the transfer from nonporous fomites to fingers, and from fingers to fomites – including mobile phones. Due to the difficulty and fastidiousness of viral culture, the viruses were detected only by molecular biology; the viability of the viruses could not be demonstrated. However, we believe that cross-transmission of viruses may occur, notably in health care settings. The recently reported case of a 40-year-old Ugandan man who stole a phone from a patient with Ebola and contracted the disease, also supports this hypothesis.

We also demonstrated in our study that hand hygiene after the use of mobile phones does not seem to be systematic, even for HCWs continuing care that was in process before picking up their phones. Around 30% of HCWs declared that they never perform hand hygiene before or after handling mobile phones. In addition, more than 30% of HCWs admitted that they never disinfect their phones, even their professional ones; this lack of hygiene could contribute to the persistence of RNA of epidemic viruses.

Our study does not support banning the use of mobile phones in hospitals. We just want to make HCWs aware that mobile phones, which are part of our daily practice, can be contaminated by pathogens, notably viruses. The use of disinfection wipes to clean phones, together with adherence to hand hygiene, is crucial to prevent cross-transmission.

Frequent disinfection of personal and professional mobile phones needs to be promoted to reduce contamination of phones by viruses, especially during epidemics.

In practice, each clinician needs to remember that hand hygiene should be the last thing done before patient contact, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Touching a mobile phone could transfer bacteria or viruses onto hands, and we hypothesize that it could be a factor in cross-transmission of pathogens.

Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers, MD, PhD, is an infectious diseases specialist at the University Hospital of Saint-Étienne (France) and Sylvie Pillet, PharmD, PhD, is a virologist in the Laboratory of Infectious Agents and Hygiene, University Hospital of Saint-Étienne.

Mobile phones became commonplace in just a few years and are now used everywhere, included remote areas of the world. These communication tools are used for personal and professional purposes, frequently by health care workers (HCWs) during care.

We and others believe that mobile phones improve the quality, rapidity, and efficiency of communication in health care settings and, therefore, improve the management of patients. In fact, professional mobile phones allow communication between HCWs anywhere in the hospital. In addition, personal mobile phones, frequently smartphones, allow the use of medical apps for evidence-based management of patients.

Mobile phones, both professional and personal, are used in close proximity to patients, as reported in behavioral studies. In a recent study we performed in a hospital setting (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May;22[5]:456.e1-e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.008), more than 60% of HCWs who participated declared using phones during care, and also declared that they had halted care to patients while answering a call.

Several studies have shown that mobile phones used at hospitals are contaminated by bacteria, including highly pathogenic ones, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter species, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Pseudomonas species, and coliforms. Research suggests that these devices may serve as a reservoir of bacteria known to cause nosocomial infections and may play a role in transmission of them to patients through the hands of HCWs.

For the first time, we demonstrated the presence of RNA of epidemic viruses such as rotavirus, influenza virus, syncytial respiratory virus, and metapneumovirus on mobile phones (professional and personal) held by HCWs. In our study, 38.5% of sampled mobile phones were contaminated with RNA from viruses. RNA of rotavirus was the most frequently-detected virus, mainly on phones sampled in the pediatric emergency ward. Interestingly, we found that HCWs in pediatric wards admitted disinfecting their mobile phones less frequently than did other HCWs we interviewed.

Epidemic viruses have already been discovered on other electronic device surfaces, such as keyboards, computers, and telephone handsets. However, in contrast to these other devices, mobile phones are mobile and could be shared and transported anywhere, including in close proximity to patients. Rotaviruses are frequently found on hospital surfaces several months after an epidemic period, after surfaces were cleaned. The high prevalence of rotavirus in pediatric ward patients during our study, and its capacity to persist in the environment, are probably the main factors that explain the high frequency of rotavirus RNA detection on mobile phones in our study.

This finding highlights the possible role of mobile phones in cross-transmission of epidemic viruses, with the transfer from nonporous fomites to fingers, and from fingers to fomites – including mobile phones. Due to the difficulty and fastidiousness of viral culture, the viruses were detected only by molecular biology; the viability of the viruses could not be demonstrated. However, we believe that cross-transmission of viruses may occur, notably in health care settings. The recently reported case of a 40-year-old Ugandan man who stole a phone from a patient with Ebola and contracted the disease, also supports this hypothesis.

We also demonstrated in our study that hand hygiene after the use of mobile phones does not seem to be systematic, even for HCWs continuing care that was in process before picking up their phones. Around 30% of HCWs declared that they never perform hand hygiene before or after handling mobile phones. In addition, more than 30% of HCWs admitted that they never disinfect their phones, even their professional ones; this lack of hygiene could contribute to the persistence of RNA of epidemic viruses.

Our study does not support banning the use of mobile phones in hospitals. We just want to make HCWs aware that mobile phones, which are part of our daily practice, can be contaminated by pathogens, notably viruses. The use of disinfection wipes to clean phones, together with adherence to hand hygiene, is crucial to prevent cross-transmission.

Frequent disinfection of personal and professional mobile phones needs to be promoted to reduce contamination of phones by viruses, especially during epidemics.

In practice, each clinician needs to remember that hand hygiene should be the last thing done before patient contact, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Touching a mobile phone could transfer bacteria or viruses onto hands, and we hypothesize that it could be a factor in cross-transmission of pathogens.

Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers, MD, PhD, is an infectious diseases specialist at the University Hospital of Saint-Étienne (France) and Sylvie Pillet, PharmD, PhD, is a virologist in the Laboratory of Infectious Agents and Hygiene, University Hospital of Saint-Étienne.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?

In my practice, we try our best to start the education process before the patient even comes in for the first visit. If a patient is going to have a filler injection, we mail out an information packet that contains information on what to expect, how to minimize bruising, what side effects (eg, bruising, swelling) may occur, and what to avoid posttreatment. By providing them with this information prior to their visit, they can better plan their treatment around social and work obligations.

We ask patients to avoid or minimize blood-thinning agents such as aspirin, ibuprofen, fish oil, or vitamin E starting 2 weeks prior to and 1 week after the procedure. We recommend that patients take a pineapple extract such as bromelain 500 mg twice daily on an empty stomach starting 1 week prior to the treatment and for up to 1 week posttreatment. We ask that patients avoid exercise for 24 hours to reduce late-onset bruising and to avoid dental work for 2 weeks posttreatment to reduce the risk for the filler becoming infected.

What are your go-to treatments?

I use a variety of fillers depending on the area I am treating (thin vs thick skin) or the amount of lift I need (ie, G')(Restylane [Galderma Laboratories, LP] has a high G', thus it gives a lot of lift) versus the amount of water absorption I am seeking to further plump an area after the filler integrates (Juvéderm [Allergan] can absorb up to 300% its weight in water) versus the filler’s cohesiveness (Belotero [Merz Aesthetics] is highly cohesive). If I am treating a thin-faced individual, I may start with a global volumizer such as poly-L-lactic acid to get a good foundation set in the temples, cheeks, and jawline, and then after a few months, I will add a hyaluronic acid filler to focal areas that still need to be lifted (eg, nasolabial folds, tear troughs).

What are the side effects?

Side effects are divided into common and rare. Common would be bruising and swelling, which are temporary and will go away in all patients. Rare but serious side effects are infection and embolization. Both can cause notable tissue loss and risk to the patient. Every practitioner needs to know how to recognize and treat these complications should they arise.

How do you keep patients compliant?

Patients who get good results will always return, which means being up front about how much filler a patient needs and how frequently he/she will need it, and also doing everything we can to reduce bruising and swelling.


Suggested Readings

• Dayan SH, Arkins JP, Brindise R. Soft tissue fillers and biofilms. Facial Plast Surg. 2011;27:23-28.
• Orsini RA; Plastic Surgery Educational Technology Assessment Committee. Bromelain. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:1640-1644.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?

In my practice, we try our best to start the education process before the patient even comes in for the first visit. If a patient is going to have a filler injection, we mail out an information packet that contains information on what to expect, how to minimize bruising, what side effects (eg, bruising, swelling) may occur, and what to avoid posttreatment. By providing them with this information prior to their visit, they can better plan their treatment around social and work obligations.

We ask patients to avoid or minimize blood-thinning agents such as aspirin, ibuprofen, fish oil, or vitamin E starting 2 weeks prior to and 1 week after the procedure. We recommend that patients take a pineapple extract such as bromelain 500 mg twice daily on an empty stomach starting 1 week prior to the treatment and for up to 1 week posttreatment. We ask that patients avoid exercise for 24 hours to reduce late-onset bruising and to avoid dental work for 2 weeks posttreatment to reduce the risk for the filler becoming infected.

What are your go-to treatments?

I use a variety of fillers depending on the area I am treating (thin vs thick skin) or the amount of lift I need (ie, G')(Restylane [Galderma Laboratories, LP] has a high G', thus it gives a lot of lift) versus the amount of water absorption I am seeking to further plump an area after the filler integrates (Juvéderm [Allergan] can absorb up to 300% its weight in water) versus the filler’s cohesiveness (Belotero [Merz Aesthetics] is highly cohesive). If I am treating a thin-faced individual, I may start with a global volumizer such as poly-L-lactic acid to get a good foundation set in the temples, cheeks, and jawline, and then after a few months, I will add a hyaluronic acid filler to focal areas that still need to be lifted (eg, nasolabial folds, tear troughs).

What are the side effects?

Side effects are divided into common and rare. Common would be bruising and swelling, which are temporary and will go away in all patients. Rare but serious side effects are infection and embolization. Both can cause notable tissue loss and risk to the patient. Every practitioner needs to know how to recognize and treat these complications should they arise.

How do you keep patients compliant?

Patients who get good results will always return, which means being up front about how much filler a patient needs and how frequently he/she will need it, and also doing everything we can to reduce bruising and swelling.


Suggested Readings

• Dayan SH, Arkins JP, Brindise R. Soft tissue fillers and biofilms. Facial Plast Surg. 2011;27:23-28.
• Orsini RA; Plastic Surgery Educational Technology Assessment Committee. Bromelain. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:1640-1644.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?

In my practice, we try our best to start the education process before the patient even comes in for the first visit. If a patient is going to have a filler injection, we mail out an information packet that contains information on what to expect, how to minimize bruising, what side effects (eg, bruising, swelling) may occur, and what to avoid posttreatment. By providing them with this information prior to their visit, they can better plan their treatment around social and work obligations.

We ask patients to avoid or minimize blood-thinning agents such as aspirin, ibuprofen, fish oil, or vitamin E starting 2 weeks prior to and 1 week after the procedure. We recommend that patients take a pineapple extract such as bromelain 500 mg twice daily on an empty stomach starting 1 week prior to the treatment and for up to 1 week posttreatment. We ask that patients avoid exercise for 24 hours to reduce late-onset bruising and to avoid dental work for 2 weeks posttreatment to reduce the risk for the filler becoming infected.

What are your go-to treatments?

I use a variety of fillers depending on the area I am treating (thin vs thick skin) or the amount of lift I need (ie, G')(Restylane [Galderma Laboratories, LP] has a high G', thus it gives a lot of lift) versus the amount of water absorption I am seeking to further plump an area after the filler integrates (Juvéderm [Allergan] can absorb up to 300% its weight in water) versus the filler’s cohesiveness (Belotero [Merz Aesthetics] is highly cohesive). If I am treating a thin-faced individual, I may start with a global volumizer such as poly-L-lactic acid to get a good foundation set in the temples, cheeks, and jawline, and then after a few months, I will add a hyaluronic acid filler to focal areas that still need to be lifted (eg, nasolabial folds, tear troughs).

What are the side effects?

Side effects are divided into common and rare. Common would be bruising and swelling, which are temporary and will go away in all patients. Rare but serious side effects are infection and embolization. Both can cause notable tissue loss and risk to the patient. Every practitioner needs to know how to recognize and treat these complications should they arise.

How do you keep patients compliant?

Patients who get good results will always return, which means being up front about how much filler a patient needs and how frequently he/she will need it, and also doing everything we can to reduce bruising and swelling.


Suggested Readings

• Dayan SH, Arkins JP, Brindise R. Soft tissue fillers and biofilms. Facial Plast Surg. 2011;27:23-28.
• Orsini RA; Plastic Surgery Educational Technology Assessment Committee. Bromelain. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:1640-1644.

In 1961 before Congress, and in 1962 at Rice University, Houston, President John F. Kennedy called on America to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely, and to look beyond the moon as well, and pursue an ambitious space exploration program. He challenged the country to think and act boldly, telling Americans in his speech at Rice that “we choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon in 1969 – even before President Kennedy’s 10-year deadline had arrived – the country’s primary moonshot was realized. The President had inspired the nation, teams of engineers and others had collectively met daunting technological challenges, and space consequently was more open to us than ever before.

In looking at the field of obstetrics and how far it has come in the past 50 years, since the 1960s, it is similarly astonishing and inspiring to reflect on what extraordinary advances we have made. Who would have thought that the fetus would become such a visible and intimate patient – one who, like the mother, can be interrogated, monitored, and sometimes treated before birth? Who would have thought we would be utilizing genomic studies in a now well-established field of prenatal diagnosis, or that fetal therapy would become a field in and of itself?

Our specialty has advanced through a series of moonshots that have been inspired and driven by technological advancement and by our continually bold goals and vision for the health and well-being of women and their offspring. We have taken on ambitious challenges, achieved many goals, and embraced advancements in practice only to then set new targets that previously were unimaginable.

Yet just as our country’s space exploration program has faced disappointments, so has our field. It is sobering, for instance, that we have made only incremental improvements in prematurity and infant mortality, and that the age-old maternal problem of preeclampsia is still with us. We also face new challenges, such as the rising rate of maternal obesity and diabetes, which threaten both maternal and fetal health.

President Kennedy spoke of having “examined where we are strong, and where we are not.” Such self-reflection and assessment is a critical underpinning of advancement in fields across all of science, medicine, and health care, and in our specialty, it is a process that has driven ambitious new research efforts to improve fetal and maternal health.

A step back to more in-depth fundamental research on the biomolecular mechanisms of premature labor and diabetes-associated birth defects, for instance, as well as new efforts to approach fetal surgery less invasively, are positioning us to both conquer our disappointments and achieve ambitious new moonshots.

The fetus as our patient

Fifty years ago, in 1966, a seminal paper in the Lancet reported that amniotic fluid cells could be cultured and were suitable for karyotyping (1[7434]:383-5). The tapping and examination of amniotic fluid had been reported on sporadically for many decades, for various clinical purposes, but by and large the fetal compartment was not invaded or directly examined. The fetus was instead the hopeful beneficiary of pregnancy care that focused on the mother. Fetal outcome was clouded in mystery, known only at birth.

With the Lancet report, prenatal detection of chromosomal disorders began to feel achievable, and the 1960s marked the beginning of a journey first through invasive methods of prenatal diagnosis and then through increasingly non-invasive approaches.

In 1970, just several years after the report on chromosome analysis of amniotic-fluid cells, another landmark paper in the New England Journal of Medicine described 162 amniocenteses performed between the 13th and 18th weeks of gestation and the detection of 10 cases of Down syndrome, as well as a few other cases of metabolic and other disorders (282[11]:596-9). This report provided an impetus for broader use of the procedure to detect neural tube defects, Down syndrome, and other abnormalities.

The adoption of amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis still took some time, however. The procedure was used primarily early on to determine fetal lung maturity, and to predict the ability of the fetus to survive after delivery.

At the time, it was widely praised as an advanced method for evaluating the fetus. Yet, looking back, the early years of the procedure seem primitive. The procedure was done late in pregnancy and it was performed blindly, with the puncture site located either with external palpation of the uterus or with the assistance of static ultrasound. Patients who had scans would usually visit the radiologist, who would mark on the patient’s abdomen a suggested location for needle insertion. Upon the patient’s return, the obstetrician would then insert a needle into that spot, blindly and likely after the fetus had moved.

The development and adoption of real-time ultrasound was a revolutionary achievement. Ultrasound-guided amniocentesis was first described in 1972, 14 years after Ian Donald’s seminal paper introducing obstetric ultrasound was published in the Lancet (1958 Jun 7;1[7032]:1188-95).

As real-time ultrasound made its way into practice, it marked the true realization of a moonshot for obstetrics.

Not only could we simultaneously visualize the needle tip and place the needle safety, but we could see the real-time movement of the fetus, its activity, and the surrounding pockets of fluid. It was like looking up into the sky and seeing the stars for the first time. We could see fetal arrhythmia – not only hear it. With this window into the fetal compartment, we could visualize the fetal bowel migrating into the chest cavity due to a hole (hernia) in the diaphragm. We could visualize other malformations as well.

Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was technically more difficult and took longer to evolve. For years, through the early 1980s, it was performed only at select centers throughout the country. Patients traveled for the procedure and faced relatively significant risks of complications.

By the end of the 1980s, however, with successive improvements in equipment and technique (including development of a transabdominal approach in addition to transvaginal) the procedure was deemed safe, effective, and acceptable for routine use. Fetoscopy, pioneered by John Hobbins, MD, and his colleagues at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., had also advanced and was being used to diagnose sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, congenital fetal skin diseases, and other disorders.

With these advances and with our newfound ability to obtain and analyze a tissue sample earlier in pregnancy – even before a woman shared the news of her pregnancy, in some cases – it seemed that we had achieved our goals and may have even reached past the moon.

Yet there were other moonshots being pursued, including initiatives to make prenatal diagnosis less invasive. The discovery in 1997 of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum, for instance, was a pivotal development that opened the door for noninvasive prenatal testing.

This, and other advances in areas from biochemistry to ultrasound to genomic analysis, led to an array of prenatal diagnostic tools that today enable women and their physicians to assess the genetic, chromosomal, and biophysical aspects of their fetus considerably before the time of viability, and from both the maternal side and directly in the fetal compartment.

First-trimester screening is a current option, and we now have the ability to more selectively perform amniocentesis and CVS based on probability testing, and not solely on maternal age. Ultrasound technology now encompasses color Doppler, 3D and 4D imaging, and other techniques that can be used to assess the placenta, various structures inside the brain, and the heart, as well as blood flow through the ductus venosus.

Parents have called for and welcomed having the option of assessing the fetus in greater detail, and of having either assurance when anomalies are excluded or the opportunity to plan and make decisions when anomalies are detected.

Fetal surgery has been a natural extension of our unprecedented access to the fetus. Our ability to visualize malformations and their evolution led to animal studies that advanced our interest in arresting, correcting, or reversing fetal anomalies through in-utero interventions. In 1981, surgeons performed the first human open fetal surgery to correct congenital hydronephrosis.

Today, we can employ endoscopic laser ablation or laser coagulation to treat severe twin-to-twin syndrome, for instance, as well as other surgical techniques to repair defects such as congenital diaphragmatic hernia, lower urinary tract obstruction, and myelomeningocele. Such advances were unimaginable decades ago.

Old foes and new threats

Despite these advances in diagnosis and care, obstetrics faces unrealized moonshots – lingering challenges that, 50 years ago, we would have predicted would have been solved. Who would have thought that we would still have as high an infant mortality rate as we do, and that we would not be further along in solving the problem of prematurity? Our progress has been only incremental.

Fifty years ago, we lacked an understanding of the basic biology of preterm labor. Prematurity was viewed simply as term labor occurring too early, and many efforts were made over the years to halt the premature labor process through the use of various drugs and other therapeutics, with variable and minimally impactful levels of success.

In the last 25 years, and especially in the last decade, we have made greater efforts to better understand the biology of premature labor – to elucidate how and why it occurs – and we have come to understand that premature labor is very different physiologically from term labor.

Thanks to the work at the Perinatology Research Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), led by Roberto Romero, MD, attention has consequently shifted toward prediction, identification of women at highest risk, and prevention of the onset of premature labor among those deemed to be at highest risk.

Cervical length in the mid-trimester is now a well-verified predictor of preterm birth, and vaginal progesterone has been shown to benefit women without other known risk factors who are diagnosed with a shortened cervical length.

We have consequently seen the preterm birth rate decline a bit. In 2013, the last year for which we have complete data, the preterm birth rate dropped to 11.4%, down from a high of 12.8% in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Infant mortality similarly remains unacceptably high, due largely to the high preterm birth rate and to our failure to significantly alter the prevalence of birth defects. In 2010, according to the CDC, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. was 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births (compared with 6.87 in 2005), and the United States ranked 26th in infant mortality among countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, despite the fact that we spend a significant portion of our gross domestic product (17.5% in 2014) on health care.

Birth defects have taken over as a leading cause of infant mortality after early newborn life, and while we’ve made some advancements in understanding and diagnosing them, the majority of causes of birth defects are still unknown.

On the maternal side of obstetrical care, our progress has similarly been more modest than we have hoped for. Preeclampsia remains a problem, for instance. Despite decades of research into its pathogenesis, our advancements have been only incremental, and the condition – particularly its severe form – continues to be a vexing and high-risk problem.

Added to such age-old foes, moreover, are the growing threats of maternal obesity and diabetes, two closely related and often chronic conditions that affect not only the health of the mother but the in-utero environment and the health of the fetus. Today, more than one-third of all adults in the U.S., and 34% of women aged 20-39 years, are obese, and almost 10% of the U.S. population has diabetes.

Both conditions are on the rise, and obstetrics is confronting an epidemic of “diabesity” that would not necessarily have been predicted 50 years ago. It is particularly alarming given our growing knowledge of how obesity can be programmed in-utero and essentially passed on from generation to generation, of how diabetes can negatively affect perinatal outcomes, and of how the two conditions can have an additive effect on fetal complications.

Achieving new moonshots

Concerted efforts in the past several decades to step back and try to understand the basic biology and physiology of term labor and of premature labor have better positioned our specialty to achieve the moonshot of significantly reducing the incidence of preterm birth.

Establishment in the mid-1980s of the NICHD’s Perinatology Research Branch was a major development in this regard, helping to build and direct research efforts, including basic laboratory science, toward questions about what triggers and propagates labor. There has been notable progress in the past decade, in particular, and our specialty is now on the right path toward development of therapeutic interventions for preventing prematurity.

Additionally, the NICHD’s recently launched Human Placenta Project is building upon the branch-sponsored animal and cell culture model systems of the placenta to allow researchers, for the first time, to monitor human placental health in real time. By more fully understanding the role of the placenta in health and disease, we will be able to better evaluate pregnancy risks and improve pregnancy outcomes.

We also are learning through research in the University of Maryland Birth Defects Research Laboratory, which I am privileged to direct, and at other facilities, that maternal hyperglycemia is a teratogen, creating insults that can trigger a series of developmental fetal defects. By studying the biomolecular mechanisms of hyperglycemia-induced birth defects and developing “molecular maps,” we expect to be able to develop strategies for preventing or mitigating the development of such anomalies. I hope and expect that these future advancements, combined with reductions in prematurity, will significantly impact the infant mortality rate.

Fetal therapy and surgery will also continue to advance, with a much more minimally invasive approach taken in the next 50 years to addressing the fetal condition without putting the mother at increased risk. Just as surgery in other fields has moved from open laparotomy to minimally invasive techniques, I believe we will develop endoscopic or laparoscopic means of correcting the various problems in-utero, such as the repair of neural tube defects and diaphragmatic hernias. It already appears likely that a fetoscopic approach to treating myelomeningocele can reduce maternal morbidity while achieving infant neurological outcomes that are at least as good as outcomes achieved with open fetal surgery.

We’re in a much different position than we were 50 years ago in that we have two patients – the mother and the fetus – with whom we can closely work. We also have a relatively new and urgent obligation to place our attention not only on women’s reproductive health, but on the general gynecologic state. Ob.gyns. often are the only primary care physicians whom women see for routine care, and the quality of our attention to their weight and their diabetes risk factors will have far-reaching consequences, both for them and for their offspring.

As we have since the 1960s, we will continue to set new moonshots and meet new challenges, working with each other and with our patients to evaluate where we are strong and where we must improve. We will persistently harness the power of technology, choosing to do the things that “are hard,” while stepping back as needed to ask and address fundamental questions.

As a result, I can envision the next 50 years as a revolutionary time period for obstetrics – a time in which current problems and disorders are abated or eliminated through a combination of genomics, microbiomics, and other technological advances. Someday in the future, we will look back on some of our many achievements and marvel at how we have transformed the unimaginable to reality.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Select advances through the years

1960s

1965: Siemens Corp. introduces first real-time ultrasound scanner.

1966: Lancet paper reports that amniotic fluid cells can be cultured and karyotyped.

1970s

1970: New England Journal of Medicine paper describes mid-trimester amniocenteses and detection of Down syndrome cases.

1972: Ultrasound-guided amniocentesis first described.

1973: Fetoscopy introduced.

1980s

1981: First human open fetal surgery to correct congenital hydronephrosis.

Early 1980s: Chorionic villus sampling introduced at select centers.

1985: Color Doppler incorporated into ultrasound.

1990s

1990: Embryoscopy first described.

Mid-1990s: 3D/4D ultrasound begins to assume major role in ob.gyn. imaging.1997: Discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma.

2000s

2003: MOMS (Management of Myelomeningocele Study) was launched.

2010s

2012: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine support cell-free DNA screening for women at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy.

2013: Preterm birth rate drops to 11.4%

2014: Diabetes incidence marks a 4-fold increase since 1980.

In 1961 before Congress, and in 1962 at Rice University, Houston, President John F. Kennedy called on America to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely, and to look beyond the moon as well, and pursue an ambitious space exploration program. He challenged the country to think and act boldly, telling Americans in his speech at Rice that “we choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon in 1969 – even before President Kennedy’s 10-year deadline had arrived – the country’s primary moonshot was realized. The President had inspired the nation, teams of engineers and others had collectively met daunting technological challenges, and space consequently was more open to us than ever before.

In looking at the field of obstetrics and how far it has come in the past 50 years, since the 1960s, it is similarly astonishing and inspiring to reflect on what extraordinary advances we have made. Who would have thought that the fetus would become such a visible and intimate patient – one who, like the mother, can be interrogated, monitored, and sometimes treated before birth? Who would have thought we would be utilizing genomic studies in a now well-established field of prenatal diagnosis, or that fetal therapy would become a field in and of itself?

Our specialty has advanced through a series of moonshots that have been inspired and driven by technological advancement and by our continually bold goals and vision for the health and well-being of women and their offspring. We have taken on ambitious challenges, achieved many goals, and embraced advancements in practice only to then set new targets that previously were unimaginable.

Yet just as our country’s space exploration program has faced disappointments, so has our field. It is sobering, for instance, that we have made only incremental improvements in prematurity and infant mortality, and that the age-old maternal problem of preeclampsia is still with us. We also face new challenges, such as the rising rate of maternal obesity and diabetes, which threaten both maternal and fetal health.

President Kennedy spoke of having “examined where we are strong, and where we are not.” Such self-reflection and assessment is a critical underpinning of advancement in fields across all of science, medicine, and health care, and in our specialty, it is a process that has driven ambitious new research efforts to improve fetal and maternal health.

A step back to more in-depth fundamental research on the biomolecular mechanisms of premature labor and diabetes-associated birth defects, for instance, as well as new efforts to approach fetal surgery less invasively, are positioning us to both conquer our disappointments and achieve ambitious new moonshots.

The fetus as our patient

Fifty years ago, in 1966, a seminal paper in the Lancet reported that amniotic fluid cells could be cultured and were suitable for karyotyping (1[7434]:383-5). The tapping and examination of amniotic fluid had been reported on sporadically for many decades, for various clinical purposes, but by and large the fetal compartment was not invaded or directly examined. The fetus was instead the hopeful beneficiary of pregnancy care that focused on the mother. Fetal outcome was clouded in mystery, known only at birth.

With the Lancet report, prenatal detection of chromosomal disorders began to feel achievable, and the 1960s marked the beginning of a journey first through invasive methods of prenatal diagnosis and then through increasingly non-invasive approaches.

In 1970, just several years after the report on chromosome analysis of amniotic-fluid cells, another landmark paper in the New England Journal of Medicine described 162 amniocenteses performed between the 13th and 18th weeks of gestation and the detection of 10 cases of Down syndrome, as well as a few other cases of metabolic and other disorders (282[11]:596-9). This report provided an impetus for broader use of the procedure to detect neural tube defects, Down syndrome, and other abnormalities.

The adoption of amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis still took some time, however. The procedure was used primarily early on to determine fetal lung maturity, and to predict the ability of the fetus to survive after delivery.

At the time, it was widely praised as an advanced method for evaluating the fetus. Yet, looking back, the early years of the procedure seem primitive. The procedure was done late in pregnancy and it was performed blindly, with the puncture site located either with external palpation of the uterus or with the assistance of static ultrasound. Patients who had scans would usually visit the radiologist, who would mark on the patient’s abdomen a suggested location for needle insertion. Upon the patient’s return, the obstetrician would then insert a needle into that spot, blindly and likely after the fetus had moved.

The development and adoption of real-time ultrasound was a revolutionary achievement. Ultrasound-guided amniocentesis was first described in 1972, 14 years after Ian Donald’s seminal paper introducing obstetric ultrasound was published in the Lancet (1958 Jun 7;1[7032]:1188-95).

As real-time ultrasound made its way into practice, it marked the true realization of a moonshot for obstetrics.

Not only could we simultaneously visualize the needle tip and place the needle safety, but we could see the real-time movement of the fetus, its activity, and the surrounding pockets of fluid. It was like looking up into the sky and seeing the stars for the first time. We could see fetal arrhythmia – not only hear it. With this window into the fetal compartment, we could visualize the fetal bowel migrating into the chest cavity due to a hole (hernia) in the diaphragm. We could visualize other malformations as well.

Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was technically more difficult and took longer to evolve. For years, through the early 1980s, it was performed only at select centers throughout the country. Patients traveled for the procedure and faced relatively significant risks of complications.

By the end of the 1980s, however, with successive improvements in equipment and technique (including development of a transabdominal approach in addition to transvaginal) the procedure was deemed safe, effective, and acceptable for routine use. Fetoscopy, pioneered by John Hobbins, MD, and his colleagues at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., had also advanced and was being used to diagnose sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, congenital fetal skin diseases, and other disorders.

With these advances and with our newfound ability to obtain and analyze a tissue sample earlier in pregnancy – even before a woman shared the news of her pregnancy, in some cases – it seemed that we had achieved our goals and may have even reached past the moon.

Yet there were other moonshots being pursued, including initiatives to make prenatal diagnosis less invasive. The discovery in 1997 of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum, for instance, was a pivotal development that opened the door for noninvasive prenatal testing.

This, and other advances in areas from biochemistry to ultrasound to genomic analysis, led to an array of prenatal diagnostic tools that today enable women and their physicians to assess the genetic, chromosomal, and biophysical aspects of their fetus considerably before the time of viability, and from both the maternal side and directly in the fetal compartment.

First-trimester screening is a current option, and we now have the ability to more selectively perform amniocentesis and CVS based on probability testing, and not solely on maternal age. Ultrasound technology now encompasses color Doppler, 3D and 4D imaging, and other techniques that can be used to assess the placenta, various structures inside the brain, and the heart, as well as blood flow through the ductus venosus.

Parents have called for and welcomed having the option of assessing the fetus in greater detail, and of having either assurance when anomalies are excluded or the opportunity to plan and make decisions when anomalies are detected.

Fetal surgery has been a natural extension of our unprecedented access to the fetus. Our ability to visualize malformations and their evolution led to animal studies that advanced our interest in arresting, correcting, or reversing fetal anomalies through in-utero interventions. In 1981, surgeons performed the first human open fetal surgery to correct congenital hydronephrosis.

Today, we can employ endoscopic laser ablation or laser coagulation to treat severe twin-to-twin syndrome, for instance, as well as other surgical techniques to repair defects such as congenital diaphragmatic hernia, lower urinary tract obstruction, and myelomeningocele. Such advances were unimaginable decades ago.

Old foes and new threats

Despite these advances in diagnosis and care, obstetrics faces unrealized moonshots – lingering challenges that, 50 years ago, we would have predicted would have been solved. Who would have thought that we would still have as high an infant mortality rate as we do, and that we would not be further along in solving the problem of prematurity? Our progress has been only incremental.

Fifty years ago, we lacked an understanding of the basic biology of preterm labor. Prematurity was viewed simply as term labor occurring too early, and many efforts were made over the years to halt the premature labor process through the use of various drugs and other therapeutics, with variable and minimally impactful levels of success.

In the last 25 years, and especially in the last decade, we have made greater efforts to better understand the biology of premature labor – to elucidate how and why it occurs – and we have come to understand that premature labor is very different physiologically from term labor.

Thanks to the work at the Perinatology Research Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), led by Roberto Romero, MD, attention has consequently shifted toward prediction, identification of women at highest risk, and prevention of the onset of premature labor among those deemed to be at highest risk.

Cervical length in the mid-trimester is now a well-verified predictor of preterm birth, and vaginal progesterone has been shown to benefit women without other known risk factors who are diagnosed with a shortened cervical length.

We have consequently seen the preterm birth rate decline a bit. In 2013, the last year for which we have complete data, the preterm birth rate dropped to 11.4%, down from a high of 12.8% in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Infant mortality similarly remains unacceptably high, due largely to the high preterm birth rate and to our failure to significantly alter the prevalence of birth defects. In 2010, according to the CDC, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. was 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births (compared with 6.87 in 2005), and the United States ranked 26th in infant mortality among countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, despite the fact that we spend a significant portion of our gross domestic product (17.5% in 2014) on health care.

Birth defects have taken over as a leading cause of infant mortality after early newborn life, and while we’ve made some advancements in understanding and diagnosing them, the majority of causes of birth defects are still unknown.

On the maternal side of obstetrical care, our progress has similarly been more modest than we have hoped for. Preeclampsia remains a problem, for instance. Despite decades of research into its pathogenesis, our advancements have been only incremental, and the condition – particularly its severe form – continues to be a vexing and high-risk problem.

Added to such age-old foes, moreover, are the growing threats of maternal obesity and diabetes, two closely related and often chronic conditions that affect not only the health of the mother but the in-utero environment and the health of the fetus. Today, more than one-third of all adults in the U.S., and 34% of women aged 20-39 years, are obese, and almost 10% of the U.S. population has diabetes.

Both conditions are on the rise, and obstetrics is confronting an epidemic of “diabesity” that would not necessarily have been predicted 50 years ago. It is particularly alarming given our growing knowledge of how obesity can be programmed in-utero and essentially passed on from generation to generation, of how diabetes can negatively affect perinatal outcomes, and of how the two conditions can have an additive effect on fetal complications.

Achieving new moonshots

Concerted efforts in the past several decades to step back and try to understand the basic biology and physiology of term labor and of premature labor have better positioned our specialty to achieve the moonshot of significantly reducing the incidence of preterm birth.

Establishment in the mid-1980s of the NICHD’s Perinatology Research Branch was a major development in this regard, helping to build and direct research efforts, including basic laboratory science, toward questions about what triggers and propagates labor. There has been notable progress in the past decade, in particular, and our specialty is now on the right path toward development of therapeutic interventions for preventing prematurity.

Additionally, the NICHD’s recently launched Human Placenta Project is building upon the branch-sponsored animal and cell culture model systems of the placenta to allow researchers, for the first time, to monitor human placental health in real time. By more fully understanding the role of the placenta in health and disease, we will be able to better evaluate pregnancy risks and improve pregnancy outcomes.

We also are learning through research in the University of Maryland Birth Defects Research Laboratory, which I am privileged to direct, and at other facilities, that maternal hyperglycemia is a teratogen, creating insults that can trigger a series of developmental fetal defects. By studying the biomolecular mechanisms of hyperglycemia-induced birth defects and developing “molecular maps,” we expect to be able to develop strategies for preventing or mitigating the development of such anomalies. I hope and expect that these future advancements, combined with reductions in prematurity, will significantly impact the infant mortality rate.

Fetal therapy and surgery will also continue to advance, with a much more minimally invasive approach taken in the next 50 years to addressing the fetal condition without putting the mother at increased risk. Just as surgery in other fields has moved from open laparotomy to minimally invasive techniques, I believe we will develop endoscopic or laparoscopic means of correcting the various problems in-utero, such as the repair of neural tube defects and diaphragmatic hernias. It already appears likely that a fetoscopic approach to treating myelomeningocele can reduce maternal morbidity while achieving infant neurological outcomes that are at least as good as outcomes achieved with open fetal surgery.

We’re in a much different position than we were 50 years ago in that we have two patients – the mother and the fetus – with whom we can closely work. We also have a relatively new and urgent obligation to place our attention not only on women’s reproductive health, but on the general gynecologic state. Ob.gyns. often are the only primary care physicians whom women see for routine care, and the quality of our attention to their weight and their diabetes risk factors will have far-reaching consequences, both for them and for their offspring.

As we have since the 1960s, we will continue to set new moonshots and meet new challenges, working with each other and with our patients to evaluate where we are strong and where we must improve. We will persistently harness the power of technology, choosing to do the things that “are hard,” while stepping back as needed to ask and address fundamental questions.

As a result, I can envision the next 50 years as a revolutionary time period for obstetrics – a time in which current problems and disorders are abated or eliminated through a combination of genomics, microbiomics, and other technological advances. Someday in the future, we will look back on some of our many achievements and marvel at how we have transformed the unimaginable to reality.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Select advances through the years

1960s

1965: Siemens Corp. introduces first real-time ultrasound scanner.

1966: Lancet paper reports that amniotic fluid cells can be cultured and karyotyped.

1970s

1970: New England Journal of Medicine paper describes mid-trimester amniocenteses and detection of Down syndrome cases.

1972: Ultrasound-guided amniocentesis first described.

1973: Fetoscopy introduced.

1980s

1981: First human open fetal surgery to correct congenital hydronephrosis.

Early 1980s: Chorionic villus sampling introduced at select centers.

1985: Color Doppler incorporated into ultrasound.

1990s

1990: Embryoscopy first described.

Mid-1990s: 3D/4D ultrasound begins to assume major role in ob.gyn. imaging.1997: Discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma.

2000s

2003: MOMS (Management of Myelomeningocele Study) was launched.

2010s

2012: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine support cell-free DNA screening for women at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy.

2013: Preterm birth rate drops to 11.4%

2014: Diabetes incidence marks a 4-fold increase since 1980.

In 1961 before Congress, and in 1962 at Rice University, Houston, President John F. Kennedy called on America to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely, and to look beyond the moon as well, and pursue an ambitious space exploration program. He challenged the country to think and act boldly, telling Americans in his speech at Rice that “we choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon in 1969 – even before President Kennedy’s 10-year deadline had arrived – the country’s primary moonshot was realized. The President had inspired the nation, teams of engineers and others had collectively met daunting technological challenges, and space consequently was more open to us than ever before.

In looking at the field of obstetrics and how far it has come in the past 50 years, since the 1960s, it is similarly astonishing and inspiring to reflect on what extraordinary advances we have made. Who would have thought that the fetus would become such a visible and intimate patient – one who, like the mother, can be interrogated, monitored, and sometimes treated before birth? Who would have thought we would be utilizing genomic studies in a now well-established field of prenatal diagnosis, or that fetal therapy would become a field in and of itself?

Our specialty has advanced through a series of moonshots that have been inspired and driven by technological advancement and by our continually bold goals and vision for the health and well-being of women and their offspring. We have taken on ambitious challenges, achieved many goals, and embraced advancements in practice only to then set new targets that previously were unimaginable.

Yet just as our country’s space exploration program has faced disappointments, so has our field. It is sobering, for instance, that we have made only incremental improvements in prematurity and infant mortality, and that the age-old maternal problem of preeclampsia is still with us. We also face new challenges, such as the rising rate of maternal obesity and diabetes, which threaten both maternal and fetal health.

President Kennedy spoke of having “examined where we are strong, and where we are not.” Such self-reflection and assessment is a critical underpinning of advancement in fields across all of science, medicine, and health care, and in our specialty, it is a process that has driven ambitious new research efforts to improve fetal and maternal health.

A step back to more in-depth fundamental research on the biomolecular mechanisms of premature labor and diabetes-associated birth defects, for instance, as well as new efforts to approach fetal surgery less invasively, are positioning us to both conquer our disappointments and achieve ambitious new moonshots.

The fetus as our patient

Fifty years ago, in 1966, a seminal paper in the Lancet reported that amniotic fluid cells could be cultured and were suitable for karyotyping (1[7434]:383-5). The tapping and examination of amniotic fluid had been reported on sporadically for many decades, for various clinical purposes, but by and large the fetal compartment was not invaded or directly examined. The fetus was instead the hopeful beneficiary of pregnancy care that focused on the mother. Fetal outcome was clouded in mystery, known only at birth.

With the Lancet report, prenatal detection of chromosomal disorders began to feel achievable, and the 1960s marked the beginning of a journey first through invasive methods of prenatal diagnosis and then through increasingly non-invasive approaches.

In 1970, just several years after the report on chromosome analysis of amniotic-fluid cells, another landmark paper in the New England Journal of Medicine described 162 amniocenteses performed between the 13th and 18th weeks of gestation and the detection of 10 cases of Down syndrome, as well as a few other cases of metabolic and other disorders (282[11]:596-9). This report provided an impetus for broader use of the procedure to detect neural tube defects, Down syndrome, and other abnormalities.

The adoption of amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis still took some time, however. The procedure was used primarily early on to determine fetal lung maturity, and to predict the ability of the fetus to survive after delivery.

At the time, it was widely praised as an advanced method for evaluating the fetus. Yet, looking back, the early years of the procedure seem primitive. The procedure was done late in pregnancy and it was performed blindly, with the puncture site located either with external palpation of the uterus or with the assistance of static ultrasound. Patients who had scans would usually visit the radiologist, who would mark on the patient’s abdomen a suggested location for needle insertion. Upon the patient’s return, the obstetrician would then insert a needle into that spot, blindly and likely after the fetus had moved.

The development and adoption of real-time ultrasound was a revolutionary achievement. Ultrasound-guided amniocentesis was first described in 1972, 14 years after Ian Donald’s seminal paper introducing obstetric ultrasound was published in the Lancet (1958 Jun 7;1[7032]:1188-95).

As real-time ultrasound made its way into practice, it marked the true realization of a moonshot for obstetrics.

Not only could we simultaneously visualize the needle tip and place the needle safety, but we could see the real-time movement of the fetus, its activity, and the surrounding pockets of fluid. It was like looking up into the sky and seeing the stars for the first time. We could see fetal arrhythmia – not only hear it. With this window into the fetal compartment, we could visualize the fetal bowel migrating into the chest cavity due to a hole (hernia) in the diaphragm. We could visualize other malformations as well.

Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was technically more difficult and took longer to evolve. For years, through the early 1980s, it was performed only at select centers throughout the country. Patients traveled for the procedure and faced relatively significant risks of complications.

By the end of the 1980s, however, with successive improvements in equipment and technique (including development of a transabdominal approach in addition to transvaginal) the procedure was deemed safe, effective, and acceptable for routine use. Fetoscopy, pioneered by John Hobbins, MD, and his colleagues at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., had also advanced and was being used to diagnose sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, congenital fetal skin diseases, and other disorders.

With these advances and with our newfound ability to obtain and analyze a tissue sample earlier in pregnancy – even before a woman shared the news of her pregnancy, in some cases – it seemed that we had achieved our goals and may have even reached past the moon.

Yet there were other moonshots being pursued, including initiatives to make prenatal diagnosis less invasive. The discovery in 1997 of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum, for instance, was a pivotal development that opened the door for noninvasive prenatal testing.

This, and other advances in areas from biochemistry to ultrasound to genomic analysis, led to an array of prenatal diagnostic tools that today enable women and their physicians to assess the genetic, chromosomal, and biophysical aspects of their fetus considerably before the time of viability, and from both the maternal side and directly in the fetal compartment.

First-trimester screening is a current option, and we now have the ability to more selectively perform amniocentesis and CVS based on probability testing, and not solely on maternal age. Ultrasound technology now encompasses color Doppler, 3D and 4D imaging, and other techniques that can be used to assess the placenta, various structures inside the brain, and the heart, as well as blood flow through the ductus venosus.

Parents have called for and welcomed having the option of assessing the fetus in greater detail, and of having either assurance when anomalies are excluded or the opportunity to plan and make decisions when anomalies are detected.

Fetal surgery has been a natural extension of our unprecedented access to the fetus. Our ability to visualize malformations and their evolution led to animal studies that advanced our interest in arresting, correcting, or reversing fetal anomalies through in-utero interventions. In 1981, surgeons performed the first human open fetal surgery to correct congenital hydronephrosis.

Today, we can employ endoscopic laser ablation or laser coagulation to treat severe twin-to-twin syndrome, for instance, as well as other surgical techniques to repair defects such as congenital diaphragmatic hernia, lower urinary tract obstruction, and myelomeningocele. Such advances were unimaginable decades ago.

Old foes and new threats

Despite these advances in diagnosis and care, obstetrics faces unrealized moonshots – lingering challenges that, 50 years ago, we would have predicted would have been solved. Who would have thought that we would still have as high an infant mortality rate as we do, and that we would not be further along in solving the problem of prematurity? Our progress has been only incremental.

Fifty years ago, we lacked an understanding of the basic biology of preterm labor. Prematurity was viewed simply as term labor occurring too early, and many efforts were made over the years to halt the premature labor process through the use of various drugs and other therapeutics, with variable and minimally impactful levels of success.

In the last 25 years, and especially in the last decade, we have made greater efforts to better understand the biology of premature labor – to elucidate how and why it occurs – and we have come to understand that premature labor is very different physiologically from term labor.

Thanks to the work at the Perinatology Research Branch of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), led by Roberto Romero, MD, attention has consequently shifted toward prediction, identification of women at highest risk, and prevention of the onset of premature labor among those deemed to be at highest risk.

Cervical length in the mid-trimester is now a well-verified predictor of preterm birth, and vaginal progesterone has been shown to benefit women without other known risk factors who are diagnosed with a shortened cervical length.

We have consequently seen the preterm birth rate decline a bit. In 2013, the last year for which we have complete data, the preterm birth rate dropped to 11.4%, down from a high of 12.8% in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Infant mortality similarly remains unacceptably high, due largely to the high preterm birth rate and to our failure to significantly alter the prevalence of birth defects. In 2010, according to the CDC, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. was 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births (compared with 6.87 in 2005), and the United States ranked 26th in infant mortality among countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, despite the fact that we spend a significant portion of our gross domestic product (17.5% in 2014) on health care.

Birth defects have taken over as a leading cause of infant mortality after early newborn life, and while we’ve made some advancements in understanding and diagnosing them, the majority of causes of birth defects are still unknown.

On the maternal side of obstetrical care, our progress has similarly been more modest than we have hoped for. Preeclampsia remains a problem, for instance. Despite decades of research into its pathogenesis, our advancements have been only incremental, and the condition – particularly its severe form – continues to be a vexing and high-risk problem.

Added to such age-old foes, moreover, are the growing threats of maternal obesity and diabetes, two closely related and often chronic conditions that affect not only the health of the mother but the in-utero environment and the health of the fetus. Today, more than one-third of all adults in the U.S., and 34% of women aged 20-39 years, are obese, and almost 10% of the U.S. population has diabetes.

Both conditions are on the rise, and obstetrics is confronting an epidemic of “diabesity” that would not necessarily have been predicted 50 years ago. It is particularly alarming given our growing knowledge of how obesity can be programmed in-utero and essentially passed on from generation to generation, of how diabetes can negatively affect perinatal outcomes, and of how the two conditions can have an additive effect on fetal complications.

Achieving new moonshots

Concerted efforts in the past several decades to step back and try to understand the basic biology and physiology of term labor and of premature labor have better positioned our specialty to achieve the moonshot of significantly reducing the incidence of preterm birth.

Establishment in the mid-1980s of the NICHD’s Perinatology Research Branch was a major development in this regard, helping to build and direct research efforts, including basic laboratory science, toward questions about what triggers and propagates labor. There has been notable progress in the past decade, in particular, and our specialty is now on the right path toward development of therapeutic interventions for preventing prematurity.

Additionally, the NICHD’s recently launched Human Placenta Project is building upon the branch-sponsored animal and cell culture model systems of the placenta to allow researchers, for the first time, to monitor human placental health in real time. By more fully understanding the role of the placenta in health and disease, we will be able to better evaluate pregnancy risks and improve pregnancy outcomes.

We also are learning through research in the University of Maryland Birth Defects Research Laboratory, which I am privileged to direct, and at other facilities, that maternal hyperglycemia is a teratogen, creating insults that can trigger a series of developmental fetal defects. By studying the biomolecular mechanisms of hyperglycemia-induced birth defects and developing “molecular maps,” we expect to be able to develop strategies for preventing or mitigating the development of such anomalies. I hope and expect that these future advancements, combined with reductions in prematurity, will significantly impact the infant mortality rate.

Fetal therapy and surgery will also continue to advance, with a much more minimally invasive approach taken in the next 50 years to addressing the fetal condition without putting the mother at increased risk. Just as surgery in other fields has moved from open laparotomy to minimally invasive techniques, I believe we will develop endoscopic or laparoscopic means of correcting the various problems in-utero, such as the repair of neural tube defects and diaphragmatic hernias. It already appears likely that a fetoscopic approach to treating myelomeningocele can reduce maternal morbidity while achieving infant neurological outcomes that are at least as good as outcomes achieved with open fetal surgery.

We’re in a much different position than we were 50 years ago in that we have two patients – the mother and the fetus – with whom we can closely work. We also have a relatively new and urgent obligation to place our attention not only on women’s reproductive health, but on the general gynecologic state. Ob.gyns. often are the only primary care physicians whom women see for routine care, and the quality of our attention to their weight and their diabetes risk factors will have far-reaching consequences, both for them and for their offspring.

As we have since the 1960s, we will continue to set new moonshots and meet new challenges, working with each other and with our patients to evaluate where we are strong and where we must improve. We will persistently harness the power of technology, choosing to do the things that “are hard,” while stepping back as needed to ask and address fundamental questions.

As a result, I can envision the next 50 years as a revolutionary time period for obstetrics – a time in which current problems and disorders are abated or eliminated through a combination of genomics, microbiomics, and other technological advances. Someday in the future, we will look back on some of our many achievements and marvel at how we have transformed the unimaginable to reality.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Dr. Reece said he had no relevant financial disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Select advances through the years

1960s

1965: Siemens Corp. introduces first real-time ultrasound scanner.

1966: Lancet paper reports that amniotic fluid cells can be cultured and karyotyped.

1970s

1970: New England Journal of Medicine paper describes mid-trimester amniocenteses and detection of Down syndrome cases.

1972: Ultrasound-guided amniocentesis first described.

1973: Fetoscopy introduced.

1980s

1981: First human open fetal surgery to correct congenital hydronephrosis.

Early 1980s: Chorionic villus sampling introduced at select centers.

1985: Color Doppler incorporated into ultrasound.

1990s

1990: Embryoscopy first described.

Mid-1990s: 3D/4D ultrasound begins to assume major role in ob.gyn. imaging.1997: Discovery of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma.

2000s

2003: MOMS (Management of Myelomeningocele Study) was launched.

2010s

2012: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine support cell-free DNA screening for women at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy.

2013: Preterm birth rate drops to 11.4%

2014: Diabetes incidence marks a 4-fold increase since 1980.

One of the most frustrating problems we encounter is helping patients with skin issues that we cannot immediately fix or cure. Teaching them the art of concealing skin blemishes gives patients a sense of relief. Color correction is an art and requires an understanding of basic color theory and Fitzpatrick skin type.

On the color wheel, each color sits directly across from another color, making them complementary colors.

Thoth_Adan (thinkstockimages)

If we look at red, the color opposing it is green. When red and green are combined, they neutralize each other. One of the greatest dermatologists of all time and my mentor, Timothy Berger, MD, taught me that in dermatology color “hue” is a clue to understanding morphology. Everything that is red cannot just be called “erythematous.” There is orange/red (pityriasis rosea, tinea versicolor, seborrheic dermatitis), deep red (cellulitis, Sweet’s syndrome, acne scars, rosacea, psoriasis), purple/red (vasculitis, lichen planus (LP), veins, under-eye circles), brown/red (pigmented purpura, pigmented acne scars, sarcoid).

The combination of the underlying pathology, morphology, and Fitzpatrick type is both a clue to diagnosis and a pallet for skin concealers. We can use the following techniques to help patients color correct skin imperfections:

Red: rosacea, acne scars, acne

Green-based concealers and primers are the best option to significantly reduce the redness. While green primers and correctors tend to be great for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, a yellow-based concealer/corrector can help to cover redness on those with skin types IV-VI.

Blue: periorbital veins

If you are dealing with blue-toned skin lesions, such as periorbital veins, the ideal corrector is one with a peach or orange undertones. For skin types I-III, a peach/salmon corrector works best, whereas skin types IV-VI requires an orange-toned corrector.

Purple: under-eye circles, LP, postprocedure bruising

If under-eye circles tend to have a more purple hue to them, a yellow-based corrector works best for skin types I-III. For skin types IV-VI skin types, you will need a corrector with a red undertone.

Yellow: bruising

Purple/lavender correctors are best suited for eliminating yellow tones from the face. Purple also combats sallow undertones of the skin.

Brown: lentigines, melasma, seborrheic keratosis, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, nevi, café au lait spots

Brown is actually the hardest of all colors to correct. The deeper the pigment (ashy dermatitis, melasma) the more gray the areas appear with skin concealers. The more superficial the pigment (ephelides, lentigines), the easier it is to correct. Generally speaking, peach toned concealers work best, not beige or brown. The corrector, however, should be lighter than the skin tone or the lesion itself will appear darker.

Helping patients conceal imperfections with these simple guidelines is a great way to help relieve some anxiety and help our patients fell more confident in their skin.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected].

One of the most frustrating problems we encounter is helping patients with skin issues that we cannot immediately fix or cure. Teaching them the art of concealing skin blemishes gives patients a sense of relief. Color correction is an art and requires an understanding of basic color theory and Fitzpatrick skin type.

On the color wheel, each color sits directly across from another color, making them complementary colors.

Thoth_Adan (thinkstockimages)

If we look at red, the color opposing it is green. When red and green are combined, they neutralize each other. One of the greatest dermatologists of all time and my mentor, Timothy Berger, MD, taught me that in dermatology color “hue” is a clue to understanding morphology. Everything that is red cannot just be called “erythematous.” There is orange/red (pityriasis rosea, tinea versicolor, seborrheic dermatitis), deep red (cellulitis, Sweet’s syndrome, acne scars, rosacea, psoriasis), purple/red (vasculitis, lichen planus (LP), veins, under-eye circles), brown/red (pigmented purpura, pigmented acne scars, sarcoid).

The combination of the underlying pathology, morphology, and Fitzpatrick type is both a clue to diagnosis and a pallet for skin concealers. We can use the following techniques to help patients color correct skin imperfections:

Red: rosacea, acne scars, acne

Green-based concealers and primers are the best option to significantly reduce the redness. While green primers and correctors tend to be great for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, a yellow-based concealer/corrector can help to cover redness on those with skin types IV-VI.

Blue: periorbital veins

If you are dealing with blue-toned skin lesions, such as periorbital veins, the ideal corrector is one with a peach or orange undertones. For skin types I-III, a peach/salmon corrector works best, whereas skin types IV-VI requires an orange-toned corrector.

Purple: under-eye circles, LP, postprocedure bruising

If under-eye circles tend to have a more purple hue to them, a yellow-based corrector works best for skin types I-III. For skin types IV-VI skin types, you will need a corrector with a red undertone.

Yellow: bruising

Purple/lavender correctors are best suited for eliminating yellow tones from the face. Purple also combats sallow undertones of the skin.

Brown: lentigines, melasma, seborrheic keratosis, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, nevi, café au lait spots

Brown is actually the hardest of all colors to correct. The deeper the pigment (ashy dermatitis, melasma) the more gray the areas appear with skin concealers. The more superficial the pigment (ephelides, lentigines), the easier it is to correct. Generally speaking, peach toned concealers work best, not beige or brown. The corrector, however, should be lighter than the skin tone or the lesion itself will appear darker.

Helping patients conceal imperfections with these simple guidelines is a great way to help relieve some anxiety and help our patients fell more confident in their skin.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected].

One of the most frustrating problems we encounter is helping patients with skin issues that we cannot immediately fix or cure. Teaching them the art of concealing skin blemishes gives patients a sense of relief. Color correction is an art and requires an understanding of basic color theory and Fitzpatrick skin type.

On the color wheel, each color sits directly across from another color, making them complementary colors.

Thoth_Adan (thinkstockimages)

If we look at red, the color opposing it is green. When red and green are combined, they neutralize each other. One of the greatest dermatologists of all time and my mentor, Timothy Berger, MD, taught me that in dermatology color “hue” is a clue to understanding morphology. Everything that is red cannot just be called “erythematous.” There is orange/red (pityriasis rosea, tinea versicolor, seborrheic dermatitis), deep red (cellulitis, Sweet’s syndrome, acne scars, rosacea, psoriasis), purple/red (vasculitis, lichen planus (LP), veins, under-eye circles), brown/red (pigmented purpura, pigmented acne scars, sarcoid).

The combination of the underlying pathology, morphology, and Fitzpatrick type is both a clue to diagnosis and a pallet for skin concealers. We can use the following techniques to help patients color correct skin imperfections:

Red: rosacea, acne scars, acne

Green-based concealers and primers are the best option to significantly reduce the redness. While green primers and correctors tend to be great for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, a yellow-based concealer/corrector can help to cover redness on those with skin types IV-VI.

Blue: periorbital veins

If you are dealing with blue-toned skin lesions, such as periorbital veins, the ideal corrector is one with a peach or orange undertones. For skin types I-III, a peach/salmon corrector works best, whereas skin types IV-VI requires an orange-toned corrector.

Purple: under-eye circles, LP, postprocedure bruising

If under-eye circles tend to have a more purple hue to them, a yellow-based corrector works best for skin types I-III. For skin types IV-VI skin types, you will need a corrector with a red undertone.

Yellow: bruising

Purple/lavender correctors are best suited for eliminating yellow tones from the face. Purple also combats sallow undertones of the skin.

Brown: lentigines, melasma, seborrheic keratosis, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, nevi, café au lait spots

Brown is actually the hardest of all colors to correct. The deeper the pigment (ashy dermatitis, melasma) the more gray the areas appear with skin concealers. The more superficial the pigment (ephelides, lentigines), the easier it is to correct. Generally speaking, peach toned concealers work best, not beige or brown. The corrector, however, should be lighter than the skin tone or the lesion itself will appear darker.

Helping patients conceal imperfections with these simple guidelines is a great way to help relieve some anxiety and help our patients fell more confident in their skin.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected].

Buy our EHR. Come to a dinner and see our EHR. Our EHR is the best.

I hear that a lot, but am not rushing out to get one. Yes, I have an EHR, but it’s one I designed myself. It works very well for my dinky little practice, and I’m happy with it.

I get notes from practices that use commercial EHRs all the time. They’re usually a pile of gobbledygook, mixing labs, vital signs, medication lists, and ICD-10 codes that tell you absolutely nothing about the patient or the physician’s thought process.

Recently, while reviewing malpractice cases, I saw some where I thought that the EHR was contributing to the problem. Medication lists that showed everything a patient had ever taken, without showing when some were discontinued. Prescribing lists that allowed you to enter only certain doses or schedules, therefore blocking the physician from tailoring them to a specific person’s needs. Physical exam forms that allowed only positive or negative answers, with nowhere to comment on unusual findings.

Of course, I’m just one person, so I thought “maybe it’s just me.” After all, a lot of practices out there use EHRs.

But apparently I’m not the only one. A recent report by one of the nation’s largest doctor-owned malpractice companies found that EHRs may increase the risks of liability and medical errors. In 2013, The Doctor’s Company found 28 closed claims where the EHR contributed, and 26 in just the first half of 2014.

These include both technological problems with the systems and human error in their use. Troubles included erroneous medication dose and schedules, diagnosis-related errors, and the sadly common pitfall of cutting and pasting previous notes without modification.

Medicine has always been, and will always be, a thinking profession, and trying to have computers take part of this job off of us is never good. EHRs, while they have advantages in convenience and space savings, are as imperfect as those who write them.

Patients are not one-size-fits-all, and individual treatments have to be customized in ways that current systems often don’t recognize, sometimes with sad consequences for all involved.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Buy our EHR. Come to a dinner and see our EHR. Our EHR is the best.

I hear that a lot, but am not rushing out to get one. Yes, I have an EHR, but it’s one I designed myself. It works very well for my dinky little practice, and I’m happy with it.

I get notes from practices that use commercial EHRs all the time. They’re usually a pile of gobbledygook, mixing labs, vital signs, medication lists, and ICD-10 codes that tell you absolutely nothing about the patient or the physician’s thought process.

Recently, while reviewing malpractice cases, I saw some where I thought that the EHR was contributing to the problem. Medication lists that showed everything a patient had ever taken, without showing when some were discontinued. Prescribing lists that allowed you to enter only certain doses or schedules, therefore blocking the physician from tailoring them to a specific person’s needs. Physical exam forms that allowed only positive or negative answers, with nowhere to comment on unusual findings.

Of course, I’m just one person, so I thought “maybe it’s just me.” After all, a lot of practices out there use EHRs.

But apparently I’m not the only one. A recent report by one of the nation’s largest doctor-owned malpractice companies found that EHRs may increase the risks of liability and medical errors. In 2013, The Doctor’s Company found 28 closed claims where the EHR contributed, and 26 in just the first half of 2014.

These include both technological problems with the systems and human error in their use. Troubles included erroneous medication dose and schedules, diagnosis-related errors, and the sadly common pitfall of cutting and pasting previous notes without modification.

Medicine has always been, and will always be, a thinking profession, and trying to have computers take part of this job off of us is never good. EHRs, while they have advantages in convenience and space savings, are as imperfect as those who write them.

Patients are not one-size-fits-all, and individual treatments have to be customized in ways that current systems often don’t recognize, sometimes with sad consequences for all involved.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Buy our EHR. Come to a dinner and see our EHR. Our EHR is the best.

I hear that a lot, but am not rushing out to get one. Yes, I have an EHR, but it’s one I designed myself. It works very well for my dinky little practice, and I’m happy with it.

I get notes from practices that use commercial EHRs all the time. They’re usually a pile of gobbledygook, mixing labs, vital signs, medication lists, and ICD-10 codes that tell you absolutely nothing about the patient or the physician’s thought process.

Recently, while reviewing malpractice cases, I saw some where I thought that the EHR was contributing to the problem. Medication lists that showed everything a patient had ever taken, without showing when some were discontinued. Prescribing lists that allowed you to enter only certain doses or schedules, therefore blocking the physician from tailoring them to a specific person’s needs. Physical exam forms that allowed only positive or negative answers, with nowhere to comment on unusual findings.

Of course, I’m just one person, so I thought “maybe it’s just me.” After all, a lot of practices out there use EHRs.

But apparently I’m not the only one. A recent report by one of the nation’s largest doctor-owned malpractice companies found that EHRs may increase the risks of liability and medical errors. In 2013, The Doctor’s Company found 28 closed claims where the EHR contributed, and 26 in just the first half of 2014.

These include both technological problems with the systems and human error in their use. Troubles included erroneous medication dose and schedules, diagnosis-related errors, and the sadly common pitfall of cutting and pasting previous notes without modification.

Medicine has always been, and will always be, a thinking profession, and trying to have computers take part of this job off of us is never good. EHRs, while they have advantages in convenience and space savings, are as imperfect as those who write them.

Patients are not one-size-fits-all, and individual treatments have to be customized in ways that current systems often don’t recognize, sometimes with sad consequences for all involved.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.