Kathryn T. Shahwan, MD

Practice Gap

Repair of a conchal defect requires careful consideration to achieve an optimal outcome. Reconstruction should resurface exposed cartilage, restore the natural projection of the auricle, and direct sound into the external auditory meatus. Patients also should be able to wear glasses and a hearing aid.

The reconstructive ladder for most conchal bowl defects includes secondary intention healing, full-thickness skin grafting (FTSG), and either a revolving-door flap or a flip-flop flap. Secondary intention and FTSG are appropriate for superficial defects, in which the loss of cartilage is not substantial.^1,2 Revolving-door and flip-flop flaps are single-stage retroauricular approaches used to repair relatively small defects of the conchal bowl.³ However, reconstructive options are limited for a large defect in which there is extensive loss of cartilage; 3-stage retroauricular approaches have been utilized. The anterior pedicled retroauricular flap is a 3-stage repair that can be utilized to reconstruct a through-and-through defect of the central ear:

• Stage 1: an anteriorly based retroauricular pedicle is incised, hinged over, and sutured to the medial aspect of the defect, resurfacing the posterior ear.
• Stage 2: the pedicle is severed and the flap is folded on itself to resurface the anterior ear.
• Stage 3: the folded edge is de-epithelialized and set into the lateral defect.⁴

The revolving-door flap also uses a 3-stage approach and is utilized for a full-thickness central auricular defect:

• Stage 1: a revolving-door flap is used to resurface the anterior ear.
• Stage 2: a cartilage graft provides structural support.
• Stage 3: division and inset with an FTSG is used to resurface the posterior ear.

The anterior pedicled retroauricular flap and revolving-door flap techniques are useful for defects when there is intact posterior auricular skin but not when there is extensive loss of cartilage. Other downsides to these 3-stage approaches are the time and multiple procedures required.⁵

We describe the technique of a retroauricular pull-through sandwich flap for repair of a large conchal bowl defect with extensive cartilage loss and intact posterior auricular skin.

Technique

A 62-year-old man presented for treatment of a 2.6×2.4-cm nodular and infiltrative basal cell carcinoma of the right conchal bowl. The tumor was cleared with 3 stages of Mohs micrographic surgery, resulting in a 5.5×4.2-cm defect with complete loss of cartilage throughout the concha, helical crus, and inner rim of the antihelix (Figure 1). A 2-stage repair was performed utilizing a cartilage graft and a pull-through retroauricular interpolation flap.

Stage 1—A cartilage graft was harvested from the left concha and sutured into the central defect for structural support (Figure 2). An incision was then made through the posterior auricular skin, just medial to the residual antihelical cartilage, and a retroauricular interpolation flap was pulled through this incision to resurface the lateral two-thirds of the conchal bowl defect. This created a “sandwich” of tissue, with the following layers (ordered from anterior to posterior): retroauricular interpolation flap, cartilage graft, and intact posterior auricular skin.

A preauricular banner transposition flap was used to repair the medial one-third of the conchal defect. A small area was left to heal by secondary intention (Figure 3).

Stage 2—The patient returned 3 weeks later for division and inset of the retroauricular interpolation flap. The pedicle of the flap was severed and its free edge was sutured into the lateral aspect of the defect. The posterior auricular incision that the flap had been pulled through in stage 1 of the repair was closed in a layered fashion, and the secondary defect of the postauricular scalp was left to heal by secondary intention (Figure 4).

Final Results—At follow-up 1 month later, the patient was noted to have good aesthetic and functional outcomes (Figure 5).

Practice Implications

The retroauricular pull-through sandwich flap combines a cartilage graft and a retroauricular interpolation flap pulled through an incision in the posterior auricular skin to resurface the anterior ear. This repair is most useful for a large conchal bowl defect in which there is extensive missing cartilage but intact posterior auricular skin.

The retroauricular scalp is a substantial tissue reservoir with robust vasculature; an interpolation flap from this area frequently is used to repair an extensive ear defect. The most common use of an interpolation flap is for a large helical defect; however, the flap also can be pulled through an incision in the posterior auricular skin to the front of the ear in a manner similar to revolving-door and flip-flop flaps, thus allowing for increased flap reach.

A cartilage graft provides structural support, helping to maintain auricular projection. The helical arcades provide a robust vascular supply and maintain viability of the helical rim tissue, despite the large aperture created for the pull-through flap.

We recommend this 2-stage repair for large conchal bowl defects with extensive cartilage loss and intact posterior auricular skin.

Practice Gap

Repair of a conchal defect requires careful consideration to achieve an optimal outcome. Reconstruction should resurface exposed cartilage, restore the natural projection of the auricle, and direct sound into the external auditory meatus. Patients also should be able to wear glasses and a hearing aid.

The reconstructive ladder for most conchal bowl defects includes secondary intention healing, full-thickness skin grafting (FTSG), and either a revolving-door flap or a flip-flop flap. Secondary intention and FTSG are appropriate for superficial defects, in which the loss of cartilage is not substantial.^1,2 Revolving-door and flip-flop flaps are single-stage retroauricular approaches used to repair relatively small defects of the conchal bowl.³ However, reconstructive options are limited for a large defect in which there is extensive loss of cartilage; 3-stage retroauricular approaches have been utilized. The anterior pedicled retroauricular flap is a 3-stage repair that can be utilized to reconstruct a through-and-through defect of the central ear:

• Stage 1: an anteriorly based retroauricular pedicle is incised, hinged over, and sutured to the medial aspect of the defect, resurfacing the posterior ear.
• Stage 2: the pedicle is severed and the flap is folded on itself to resurface the anterior ear.
• Stage 3: the folded edge is de-epithelialized and set into the lateral defect.⁴

The revolving-door flap also uses a 3-stage approach and is utilized for a full-thickness central auricular defect:

• Stage 1: a revolving-door flap is used to resurface the anterior ear.
• Stage 2: a cartilage graft provides structural support.
• Stage 3: division and inset with an FTSG is used to resurface the posterior ear.

The anterior pedicled retroauricular flap and revolving-door flap techniques are useful for defects when there is intact posterior auricular skin but not when there is extensive loss of cartilage. Other downsides to these 3-stage approaches are the time and multiple procedures required.⁵

We describe the technique of a retroauricular pull-through sandwich flap for repair of a large conchal bowl defect with extensive cartilage loss and intact posterior auricular skin.

Technique

A 62-year-old man presented for treatment of a 2.6×2.4-cm nodular and infiltrative basal cell carcinoma of the right conchal bowl. The tumor was cleared with 3 stages of Mohs micrographic surgery, resulting in a 5.5×4.2-cm defect with complete loss of cartilage throughout the concha, helical crus, and inner rim of the antihelix (Figure 1). A 2-stage repair was performed utilizing a cartilage graft and a pull-through retroauricular interpolation flap.

Stage 1—A cartilage graft was harvested from the left concha and sutured into the central defect for structural support (Figure 2). An incision was then made through the posterior auricular skin, just medial to the residual antihelical cartilage, and a retroauricular interpolation flap was pulled through this incision to resurface the lateral two-thirds of the conchal bowl defect. This created a “sandwich” of tissue, with the following layers (ordered from anterior to posterior): retroauricular interpolation flap, cartilage graft, and intact posterior auricular skin.

A preauricular banner transposition flap was used to repair the medial one-third of the conchal defect. A small area was left to heal by secondary intention (Figure 3).

Stage 2—The patient returned 3 weeks later for division and inset of the retroauricular interpolation flap. The pedicle of the flap was severed and its free edge was sutured into the lateral aspect of the defect. The posterior auricular incision that the flap had been pulled through in stage 1 of the repair was closed in a layered fashion, and the secondary defect of the postauricular scalp was left to heal by secondary intention (Figure 4).

Final Results—At follow-up 1 month later, the patient was noted to have good aesthetic and functional outcomes (Figure 5).

Practice Implications

The retroauricular pull-through sandwich flap combines a cartilage graft and a retroauricular interpolation flap pulled through an incision in the posterior auricular skin to resurface the anterior ear. This repair is most useful for a large conchal bowl defect in which there is extensive missing cartilage but intact posterior auricular skin.

The retroauricular scalp is a substantial tissue reservoir with robust vasculature; an interpolation flap from this area frequently is used to repair an extensive ear defect. The most common use of an interpolation flap is for a large helical defect; however, the flap also can be pulled through an incision in the posterior auricular skin to the front of the ear in a manner similar to revolving-door and flip-flop flaps, thus allowing for increased flap reach.

A cartilage graft provides structural support, helping to maintain auricular projection. The helical arcades provide a robust vascular supply and maintain viability of the helical rim tissue, despite the large aperture created for the pull-through flap.

We recommend this 2-stage repair for large conchal bowl defects with extensive cartilage loss and intact posterior auricular skin.

Practice Gap

Repair of a conchal defect requires careful consideration to achieve an optimal outcome. Reconstruction should resurface exposed cartilage, restore the natural projection of the auricle, and direct sound into the external auditory meatus. Patients also should be able to wear glasses and a hearing aid.

The reconstructive ladder for most conchal bowl defects includes secondary intention healing, full-thickness skin grafting (FTSG), and either a revolving-door flap or a flip-flop flap. Secondary intention and FTSG are appropriate for superficial defects, in which the loss of cartilage is not substantial.^1,2 Revolving-door and flip-flop flaps are single-stage retroauricular approaches used to repair relatively small defects of the conchal bowl.³ However, reconstructive options are limited for a large defect in which there is extensive loss of cartilage; 3-stage retroauricular approaches have been utilized. The anterior pedicled retroauricular flap is a 3-stage repair that can be utilized to reconstruct a through-and-through defect of the central ear:

• Stage 1: an anteriorly based retroauricular pedicle is incised, hinged over, and sutured to the medial aspect of the defect, resurfacing the posterior ear.
• Stage 2: the pedicle is severed and the flap is folded on itself to resurface the anterior ear.
• Stage 3: the folded edge is de-epithelialized and set into the lateral defect.⁴

The revolving-door flap also uses a 3-stage approach and is utilized for a full-thickness central auricular defect:

• Stage 1: a revolving-door flap is used to resurface the anterior ear.
• Stage 2: a cartilage graft provides structural support.
• Stage 3: division and inset with an FTSG is used to resurface the posterior ear.

The anterior pedicled retroauricular flap and revolving-door flap techniques are useful for defects when there is intact posterior auricular skin but not when there is extensive loss of cartilage. Other downsides to these 3-stage approaches are the time and multiple procedures required.⁵

We describe the technique of a retroauricular pull-through sandwich flap for repair of a large conchal bowl defect with extensive cartilage loss and intact posterior auricular skin.

Technique

A 62-year-old man presented for treatment of a 2.6×2.4-cm nodular and infiltrative basal cell carcinoma of the right conchal bowl. The tumor was cleared with 3 stages of Mohs micrographic surgery, resulting in a 5.5×4.2-cm defect with complete loss of cartilage throughout the concha, helical crus, and inner rim of the antihelix (Figure 1). A 2-stage repair was performed utilizing a cartilage graft and a pull-through retroauricular interpolation flap.

Stage 1—A cartilage graft was harvested from the left concha and sutured into the central defect for structural support (Figure 2). An incision was then made through the posterior auricular skin, just medial to the residual antihelical cartilage, and a retroauricular interpolation flap was pulled through this incision to resurface the lateral two-thirds of the conchal bowl defect. This created a “sandwich” of tissue, with the following layers (ordered from anterior to posterior): retroauricular interpolation flap, cartilage graft, and intact posterior auricular skin.

A preauricular banner transposition flap was used to repair the medial one-third of the conchal defect. A small area was left to heal by secondary intention (Figure 3).

Stage 2—The patient returned 3 weeks later for division and inset of the retroauricular interpolation flap. The pedicle of the flap was severed and its free edge was sutured into the lateral aspect of the defect. The posterior auricular incision that the flap had been pulled through in stage 1 of the repair was closed in a layered fashion, and the secondary defect of the postauricular scalp was left to heal by secondary intention (Figure 4).

Final Results—At follow-up 1 month later, the patient was noted to have good aesthetic and functional outcomes (Figure 5).

Practice Implications

The retroauricular pull-through sandwich flap combines a cartilage graft and a retroauricular interpolation flap pulled through an incision in the posterior auricular skin to resurface the anterior ear. This repair is most useful for a large conchal bowl defect in which there is extensive missing cartilage but intact posterior auricular skin.

The retroauricular scalp is a substantial tissue reservoir with robust vasculature; an interpolation flap from this area frequently is used to repair an extensive ear defect. The most common use of an interpolation flap is for a large helical defect; however, the flap also can be pulled through an incision in the posterior auricular skin to the front of the ear in a manner similar to revolving-door and flip-flop flaps, thus allowing for increased flap reach.

A cartilage graft provides structural support, helping to maintain auricular projection. The helical arcades provide a robust vascular supply and maintain viability of the helical rim tissue, despite the large aperture created for the pull-through flap.

We recommend this 2-stage repair for large conchal bowl defects with extensive cartilage loss and intact posterior auricular skin.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Practice Gap

Onychocryptosis, colloquially known as an ingrown nail, most commonly affects the lateral folds of the toenails. It also can affect the fingernails and the distal aspect of the nail unit, though these presentations are not as well described in the literature. In onychocryptosis, the nail plate grows downward into the periungual skin, resulting in chronic pain and inflammation. Risk factors include overtrimming the nails with rounded edges, local trauma, nail surgery, wearing tight footwear, obesity, and onychomycosis.¹

Although surgical intervention might be required for severe or refractory disease, conservative treatment options are first line and often curative. A variety of techniques have been designed to separate the ingrown portion of the nail plate from underlying skin, including placement of an intervening piece of dental floss, cotton, or plastic tubing.²

Anchor taping is another effective method of treating onychocryptosis; a strip of tape is used to gently pull and secure the affected nail fold away from the overlying nail plate. This technique has been well described for the treatment of onychocryptosis of the lateral toenail.^3-5 In 2017, Arai and Haneke⁵ presented a modified technique for the treatment of distal disease.

We present a simplified method that was used successfully in a case of distal onychocryptosis of the thumbnail that occurred approximately 4 months after complete nail avulsion with a nail matrix biopsy (Figure 1).

The Technique

A strongly adhesive, soft cotton, elastic tape that is 1-inch wide, such as Elastikon Elastic Tape (Johnson & Johnson), is used to pull and secure the hyponychium away from the overlying nail plate. When this technique is used for lateral onychocryptosis, a single strip of tape is secured to the affected lateral nail fold, pulled obliquely and proximally, and secured to the base of the digit.^3-5 In the Arai and Haneke⁵ method for the treatment of distal disease, a piece of tape is first placed at the distal nail fold, pulled proximally, and secured to the ventral aspect of the digit. Then, 1 or 2 additional strips of tape are applied to the lateral nail folds, pulled obliquely, and adhered to the base of the digit, as in the classic technique for lateral onychocryptosis.⁵

In our modification for the treatment of distal disease, only 2 strips of tape are required, each approximately 5-cm long. The first strip of tape is applied to the hyponychium parallel to the long axis of the finger, pulled away from the distal edge of the nail plate, and secured obliquely and proximally to the base of the finger on one side. The second strip of tape is applied to the hyponychium in the same manner, directly overlying the first strip, but is then pulled obliquely in the opposite direction and secured to the other side of the proximal finger (Figure 2). The 2 strips of tape are applied directly overlying each other at the distal nail fold but with opposing tension vectors to optimize pull on the distal nail fold. This modification eliminates the need to apply an initial strip of tape along the long axis of the digit, as described by Arai and Haneke.⁵

Practice Implications

Anchor taping is a common and effective treatment of onychocryptosis. Most techniques described in the literature are for lateral toenail cases, which often are managed by podiatry. A modification for the treatment of distal onychocryptosis has been previously described.⁵ We describe a similar modification using 2 tape strips pulled in opposite directions, which successfully resolved a case of distal onychocryptosis of the fingernail that developed following a nail procedure.

Because nail dystrophy is a relatively common complication of nail surgery, dermatologic surgeons should be aware of this simple, cost-effective, and noninvasive technique for the treatment of distal onychocryptosis.

Practice Gap

Onychocryptosis, colloquially known as an ingrown nail, most commonly affects the lateral folds of the toenails. It also can affect the fingernails and the distal aspect of the nail unit, though these presentations are not as well described in the literature. In onychocryptosis, the nail plate grows downward into the periungual skin, resulting in chronic pain and inflammation. Risk factors include overtrimming the nails with rounded edges, local trauma, nail surgery, wearing tight footwear, obesity, and onychomycosis.¹

Although surgical intervention might be required for severe or refractory disease, conservative treatment options are first line and often curative. A variety of techniques have been designed to separate the ingrown portion of the nail plate from underlying skin, including placement of an intervening piece of dental floss, cotton, or plastic tubing.²

Anchor taping is another effective method of treating onychocryptosis; a strip of tape is used to gently pull and secure the affected nail fold away from the overlying nail plate. This technique has been well described for the treatment of onychocryptosis of the lateral toenail.^3-5 In 2017, Arai and Haneke⁵ presented a modified technique for the treatment of distal disease.

We present a simplified method that was used successfully in a case of distal onychocryptosis of the thumbnail that occurred approximately 4 months after complete nail avulsion with a nail matrix biopsy (Figure 1).

The Technique

A strongly adhesive, soft cotton, elastic tape that is 1-inch wide, such as Elastikon Elastic Tape (Johnson & Johnson), is used to pull and secure the hyponychium away from the overlying nail plate. When this technique is used for lateral onychocryptosis, a single strip of tape is secured to the affected lateral nail fold, pulled obliquely and proximally, and secured to the base of the digit.^3-5 In the Arai and Haneke⁵ method for the treatment of distal disease, a piece of tape is first placed at the distal nail fold, pulled proximally, and secured to the ventral aspect of the digit. Then, 1 or 2 additional strips of tape are applied to the lateral nail folds, pulled obliquely, and adhered to the base of the digit, as in the classic technique for lateral onychocryptosis.⁵

In our modification for the treatment of distal disease, only 2 strips of tape are required, each approximately 5-cm long. The first strip of tape is applied to the hyponychium parallel to the long axis of the finger, pulled away from the distal edge of the nail plate, and secured obliquely and proximally to the base of the finger on one side. The second strip of tape is applied to the hyponychium in the same manner, directly overlying the first strip, but is then pulled obliquely in the opposite direction and secured to the other side of the proximal finger (Figure 2). The 2 strips of tape are applied directly overlying each other at the distal nail fold but with opposing tension vectors to optimize pull on the distal nail fold. This modification eliminates the need to apply an initial strip of tape along the long axis of the digit, as described by Arai and Haneke.⁵

Practice Implications

Anchor taping is a common and effective treatment of onychocryptosis. Most techniques described in the literature are for lateral toenail cases, which often are managed by podiatry. A modification for the treatment of distal onychocryptosis has been previously described.⁵ We describe a similar modification using 2 tape strips pulled in opposite directions, which successfully resolved a case of distal onychocryptosis of the fingernail that developed following a nail procedure.

Because nail dystrophy is a relatively common complication of nail surgery, dermatologic surgeons should be aware of this simple, cost-effective, and noninvasive technique for the treatment of distal onychocryptosis.

Practice Gap

Onychocryptosis, colloquially known as an ingrown nail, most commonly affects the lateral folds of the toenails. It also can affect the fingernails and the distal aspect of the nail unit, though these presentations are not as well described in the literature. In onychocryptosis, the nail plate grows downward into the periungual skin, resulting in chronic pain and inflammation. Risk factors include overtrimming the nails with rounded edges, local trauma, nail surgery, wearing tight footwear, obesity, and onychomycosis.¹

Although surgical intervention might be required for severe or refractory disease, conservative treatment options are first line and often curative. A variety of techniques have been designed to separate the ingrown portion of the nail plate from underlying skin, including placement of an intervening piece of dental floss, cotton, or plastic tubing.²

Anchor taping is another effective method of treating onychocryptosis; a strip of tape is used to gently pull and secure the affected nail fold away from the overlying nail plate. This technique has been well described for the treatment of onychocryptosis of the lateral toenail.^3-5 In 2017, Arai and Haneke⁵ presented a modified technique for the treatment of distal disease.

We present a simplified method that was used successfully in a case of distal onychocryptosis of the thumbnail that occurred approximately 4 months after complete nail avulsion with a nail matrix biopsy (Figure 1).

The Technique

A strongly adhesive, soft cotton, elastic tape that is 1-inch wide, such as Elastikon Elastic Tape (Johnson & Johnson), is used to pull and secure the hyponychium away from the overlying nail plate. When this technique is used for lateral onychocryptosis, a single strip of tape is secured to the affected lateral nail fold, pulled obliquely and proximally, and secured to the base of the digit.^3-5 In the Arai and Haneke⁵ method for the treatment of distal disease, a piece of tape is first placed at the distal nail fold, pulled proximally, and secured to the ventral aspect of the digit. Then, 1 or 2 additional strips of tape are applied to the lateral nail folds, pulled obliquely, and adhered to the base of the digit, as in the classic technique for lateral onychocryptosis.⁵

In our modification for the treatment of distal disease, only 2 strips of tape are required, each approximately 5-cm long. The first strip of tape is applied to the hyponychium parallel to the long axis of the finger, pulled away from the distal edge of the nail plate, and secured obliquely and proximally to the base of the finger on one side. The second strip of tape is applied to the hyponychium in the same manner, directly overlying the first strip, but is then pulled obliquely in the opposite direction and secured to the other side of the proximal finger (Figure 2). The 2 strips of tape are applied directly overlying each other at the distal nail fold but with opposing tension vectors to optimize pull on the distal nail fold. This modification eliminates the need to apply an initial strip of tape along the long axis of the digit, as described by Arai and Haneke.⁵

Practice Implications

Anchor taping is a common and effective treatment of onychocryptosis. Most techniques described in the literature are for lateral toenail cases, which often are managed by podiatry. A modification for the treatment of distal onychocryptosis has been previously described.⁵ We describe a similar modification using 2 tape strips pulled in opposite directions, which successfully resolved a case of distal onychocryptosis of the fingernail that developed following a nail procedure.

Because nail dystrophy is a relatively common complication of nail surgery, dermatologic surgeons should be aware of this simple, cost-effective, and noninvasive technique for the treatment of distal onychocryptosis.