Richard F. Wagner Jr, MD

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

A collision tumor is the coexistence of 2 discrete tumors in the same neoplasm, possibly comprising a malignant tumor and a benign tumor, and thereby complicating appropriate diagnosis and treatment. We present a case of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the scalp that was later found to be in collision with an apocrine hidrocystoma that might have arisen from a nevus sebaceus. Although rare, BCC can coexist with apocrine hidrocystoma. Jayaprakasam and Rene¹ reported a case of a collision tumor containing BCC and hidrocystoma on the eyelid.¹ We present a case of a BCC on the scalp that was later found to be in collision with an apocrine hidrocystoma that possibly arose from a nevus sebaceus.

A 92-year-old Black woman with a biopsy-confirmed primary BCC of the left parietal scalp presented for Mohs micrographic surgery. The pathology report from an outside facility was reviewed. The initial diagnosis had been made with 2 punch biopsies from separate areas of the large nodule—one consistent with nodular and pigmented BCC (Figure 1), and the other revealed nodular ulcerated BCC. Physical examination prior to Mohs surgery revealed a mobile, flesh-colored, 6.2×6.0-cm nodule with minimal overlying hair on the left parietal scalp (Figure 2). During stage-I processing by the histopathology laboratory, large cystic structures were encountered; en face frozen sections showed a cystic tumor. Excised tissue was submitted for permanent processing to aid in diagnosis; the initial diagnostic biopsy slides were requested from the outside facility for review.

The initial diagnostic biopsy slides were reviewed and found to be consistent with nodular and pigmented BCC, as previously reported. Findings from hematoxylin and eosin staining of tissue obtained from Mohs sections were consistent with a combined neoplasm comprising BCC (Figure 3A) and apocrine hidrocystoma (Figure 3B). In addition, one section was characterized by acanthosis, papillomatosis, and sebaceous glands—similar to findings that are seen in a nevus sebaceus (Figure 3C).

The BCC was cleared after stage I; the final wound size was 7×6.6 cm. Although benign apocrine hidrocystoma was still evident at the margin, further excision was not performed at the request of the patient and her family. Partial primary wound closure was performed with pulley sutures. A xenograft was placed over the unclosed central portion. The wound was permitted to heal by second intention.

The clinical differential diagnosis of a scalp nodule includes a pilar cyst, BCC, squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, cutaneous metastasis, adnexal tumor, atypical fibroxanthoma, and collision tumor. A collision tumor—the association of 2 or more benign or malignant neoplasms—represents a well-known pitfall in making a correct clinical and pathologic diagnosis.² Many theories have been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of collision tumors. Some authors have speculated that they arise from involvement of related cell types.¹ Other theories include induction by cytokines and growth factors secreted from one tumor that provides an ideal environment for proliferation of other cell types, a field cancerization effect of sun-damaged skin, or a coincidence.²

In our case, it is possible that the 2 tumors arose from a nevus sebaceus. One retrospective study of 706 cases of nevus sebaceus (707 specimens) found that 22.5% of cases developed secondary proliferation; of those cases, 18.9% were benign.³ Additionally, in 4.2% of cases of nevus sebaceus, proliferation of 2 or more tumors developed. The most common malignant neoplasm to develop from nevus sebaceus was BCC, followed by squamous cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma. The most common benign neoplasm to develop from nevus sebaceus was trichoblastoma, followed by syringocystadenoma papilliferum.³

Our case highlights the possibility of a sampling error when performing a biopsy of any large neoplasm. Additionally, Mohs surgeons should maintain high clinical suspicion for collision tumors when encountering a large tumor with pathology inconsistent with the original biopsy. Apocrine hidrocystoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a large cystic mass of the scalp. Also, it is important to recognize that malignant lesions, such as BCC, can coexist with another benign tumor. Basal cell carcinoma is rare in Black patients, supporting our belief that our patient’s tumors arose from a nevus sebaceus.

It also is important for Mohs surgeons to consider any potential discrepancy between the initial pathology report and Mohs intraoperative pathology that can impact diagnosis, the aggressiveness of the tumors identified, and how such aggressiveness may affect management options.^4,5 Some dermatology practices request biopsy slides from patients who are referred for Mohs micrographic surgery for internal review by a dermatopathologist before surgery is performed; however, this protocol requires additional time and adds costs for the overall health care system.⁴ One study found that internal review of outside biopsy slides resulted in a change in diagnosis in 2.2% of patients (N=3345)—affecting management in 61% of cases in which the diagnosis was changed.⁴ Another study (N=163) found that the reported aggressiveness of 50.5% of nonmelanoma cases in an initial biopsy report was changed during Mohs micrographic surgery.⁵ Mohs surgeons should be aware that discrepancies can occur, and if a discrepancy is discovered, the procedure may be paused until the initial biopsy slide is reviewed and further information is collected.

To the Editor:

A collision tumor is the coexistence of 2 discrete tumors in the same neoplasm, possibly comprising a malignant tumor and a benign tumor, and thereby complicating appropriate diagnosis and treatment. We present a case of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the scalp that was later found to be in collision with an apocrine hidrocystoma that might have arisen from a nevus sebaceus. Although rare, BCC can coexist with apocrine hidrocystoma. Jayaprakasam and Rene¹ reported a case of a collision tumor containing BCC and hidrocystoma on the eyelid.¹ We present a case of a BCC on the scalp that was later found to be in collision with an apocrine hidrocystoma that possibly arose from a nevus sebaceus.

A 92-year-old Black woman with a biopsy-confirmed primary BCC of the left parietal scalp presented for Mohs micrographic surgery. The pathology report from an outside facility was reviewed. The initial diagnosis had been made with 2 punch biopsies from separate areas of the large nodule—one consistent with nodular and pigmented BCC (Figure 1), and the other revealed nodular ulcerated BCC. Physical examination prior to Mohs surgery revealed a mobile, flesh-colored, 6.2×6.0-cm nodule with minimal overlying hair on the left parietal scalp (Figure 2). During stage-I processing by the histopathology laboratory, large cystic structures were encountered; en face frozen sections showed a cystic tumor. Excised tissue was submitted for permanent processing to aid in diagnosis; the initial diagnostic biopsy slides were requested from the outside facility for review.

The initial diagnostic biopsy slides were reviewed and found to be consistent with nodular and pigmented BCC, as previously reported. Findings from hematoxylin and eosin staining of tissue obtained from Mohs sections were consistent with a combined neoplasm comprising BCC (Figure 3A) and apocrine hidrocystoma (Figure 3B). In addition, one section was characterized by acanthosis, papillomatosis, and sebaceous glands—similar to findings that are seen in a nevus sebaceus (Figure 3C).

The BCC was cleared after stage I; the final wound size was 7×6.6 cm. Although benign apocrine hidrocystoma was still evident at the margin, further excision was not performed at the request of the patient and her family. Partial primary wound closure was performed with pulley sutures. A xenograft was placed over the unclosed central portion. The wound was permitted to heal by second intention.

The clinical differential diagnosis of a scalp nodule includes a pilar cyst, BCC, squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, cutaneous metastasis, adnexal tumor, atypical fibroxanthoma, and collision tumor. A collision tumor—the association of 2 or more benign or malignant neoplasms—represents a well-known pitfall in making a correct clinical and pathologic diagnosis.² Many theories have been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of collision tumors. Some authors have speculated that they arise from involvement of related cell types.¹ Other theories include induction by cytokines and growth factors secreted from one tumor that provides an ideal environment for proliferation of other cell types, a field cancerization effect of sun-damaged skin, or a coincidence.²

In our case, it is possible that the 2 tumors arose from a nevus sebaceus. One retrospective study of 706 cases of nevus sebaceus (707 specimens) found that 22.5% of cases developed secondary proliferation; of those cases, 18.9% were benign.³ Additionally, in 4.2% of cases of nevus sebaceus, proliferation of 2 or more tumors developed. The most common malignant neoplasm to develop from nevus sebaceus was BCC, followed by squamous cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma. The most common benign neoplasm to develop from nevus sebaceus was trichoblastoma, followed by syringocystadenoma papilliferum.³

Our case highlights the possibility of a sampling error when performing a biopsy of any large neoplasm. Additionally, Mohs surgeons should maintain high clinical suspicion for collision tumors when encountering a large tumor with pathology inconsistent with the original biopsy. Apocrine hidrocystoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a large cystic mass of the scalp. Also, it is important to recognize that malignant lesions, such as BCC, can coexist with another benign tumor. Basal cell carcinoma is rare in Black patients, supporting our belief that our patient’s tumors arose from a nevus sebaceus.

It also is important for Mohs surgeons to consider any potential discrepancy between the initial pathology report and Mohs intraoperative pathology that can impact diagnosis, the aggressiveness of the tumors identified, and how such aggressiveness may affect management options.^4,5 Some dermatology practices request biopsy slides from patients who are referred for Mohs micrographic surgery for internal review by a dermatopathologist before surgery is performed; however, this protocol requires additional time and adds costs for the overall health care system.⁴ One study found that internal review of outside biopsy slides resulted in a change in diagnosis in 2.2% of patients (N=3345)—affecting management in 61% of cases in which the diagnosis was changed.⁴ Another study (N=163) found that the reported aggressiveness of 50.5% of nonmelanoma cases in an initial biopsy report was changed during Mohs micrographic surgery.⁵ Mohs surgeons should be aware that discrepancies can occur, and if a discrepancy is discovered, the procedure may be paused until the initial biopsy slide is reviewed and further information is collected.

To the Editor:

A collision tumor is the coexistence of 2 discrete tumors in the same neoplasm, possibly comprising a malignant tumor and a benign tumor, and thereby complicating appropriate diagnosis and treatment. We present a case of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the scalp that was later found to be in collision with an apocrine hidrocystoma that might have arisen from a nevus sebaceus. Although rare, BCC can coexist with apocrine hidrocystoma. Jayaprakasam and Rene¹ reported a case of a collision tumor containing BCC and hidrocystoma on the eyelid.¹ We present a case of a BCC on the scalp that was later found to be in collision with an apocrine hidrocystoma that possibly arose from a nevus sebaceus.

A 92-year-old Black woman with a biopsy-confirmed primary BCC of the left parietal scalp presented for Mohs micrographic surgery. The pathology report from an outside facility was reviewed. The initial diagnosis had been made with 2 punch biopsies from separate areas of the large nodule—one consistent with nodular and pigmented BCC (Figure 1), and the other revealed nodular ulcerated BCC. Physical examination prior to Mohs surgery revealed a mobile, flesh-colored, 6.2×6.0-cm nodule with minimal overlying hair on the left parietal scalp (Figure 2). During stage-I processing by the histopathology laboratory, large cystic structures were encountered; en face frozen sections showed a cystic tumor. Excised tissue was submitted for permanent processing to aid in diagnosis; the initial diagnostic biopsy slides were requested from the outside facility for review.

The initial diagnostic biopsy slides were reviewed and found to be consistent with nodular and pigmented BCC, as previously reported. Findings from hematoxylin and eosin staining of tissue obtained from Mohs sections were consistent with a combined neoplasm comprising BCC (Figure 3A) and apocrine hidrocystoma (Figure 3B). In addition, one section was characterized by acanthosis, papillomatosis, and sebaceous glands—similar to findings that are seen in a nevus sebaceus (Figure 3C).

The BCC was cleared after stage I; the final wound size was 7×6.6 cm. Although benign apocrine hidrocystoma was still evident at the margin, further excision was not performed at the request of the patient and her family. Partial primary wound closure was performed with pulley sutures. A xenograft was placed over the unclosed central portion. The wound was permitted to heal by second intention.

The clinical differential diagnosis of a scalp nodule includes a pilar cyst, BCC, squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, cutaneous metastasis, adnexal tumor, atypical fibroxanthoma, and collision tumor. A collision tumor—the association of 2 or more benign or malignant neoplasms—represents a well-known pitfall in making a correct clinical and pathologic diagnosis.² Many theories have been proposed to explain the pathophysiology of collision tumors. Some authors have speculated that they arise from involvement of related cell types.¹ Other theories include induction by cytokines and growth factors secreted from one tumor that provides an ideal environment for proliferation of other cell types, a field cancerization effect of sun-damaged skin, or a coincidence.²

In our case, it is possible that the 2 tumors arose from a nevus sebaceus. One retrospective study of 706 cases of nevus sebaceus (707 specimens) found that 22.5% of cases developed secondary proliferation; of those cases, 18.9% were benign.³ Additionally, in 4.2% of cases of nevus sebaceus, proliferation of 2 or more tumors developed. The most common malignant neoplasm to develop from nevus sebaceus was BCC, followed by squamous cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma. The most common benign neoplasm to develop from nevus sebaceus was trichoblastoma, followed by syringocystadenoma papilliferum.³

Our case highlights the possibility of a sampling error when performing a biopsy of any large neoplasm. Additionally, Mohs surgeons should maintain high clinical suspicion for collision tumors when encountering a large tumor with pathology inconsistent with the original biopsy. Apocrine hidrocystoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a large cystic mass of the scalp. Also, it is important to recognize that malignant lesions, such as BCC, can coexist with another benign tumor. Basal cell carcinoma is rare in Black patients, supporting our belief that our patient’s tumors arose from a nevus sebaceus.

It also is important for Mohs surgeons to consider any potential discrepancy between the initial pathology report and Mohs intraoperative pathology that can impact diagnosis, the aggressiveness of the tumors identified, and how such aggressiveness may affect management options.^4,5 Some dermatology practices request biopsy slides from patients who are referred for Mohs micrographic surgery for internal review by a dermatopathologist before surgery is performed; however, this protocol requires additional time and adds costs for the overall health care system.⁴ One study found that internal review of outside biopsy slides resulted in a change in diagnosis in 2.2% of patients (N=3345)—affecting management in 61% of cases in which the diagnosis was changed.⁴ Another study (N=163) found that the reported aggressiveness of 50.5% of nonmelanoma cases in an initial biopsy report was changed during Mohs micrographic surgery.⁵ Mohs surgeons should be aware that discrepancies can occur, and if a discrepancy is discovered, the procedure may be paused until the initial biopsy slide is reviewed and further information is collected.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

Practice Gap

It is well established that surgical complications and a poor scar outcome can have a remarkable impact on patient satisfaction.¹ A common complication following dermatologic surgery is suture spitting, in which a buried suture is extruded through the skin surface. When repairing a cutaneous defect following dermatologic surgery, absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures are placed under the skin surface to approximate wound edges, eliminate dead space, and reduce tension on the edges of the wound, improving the cosmetic outcomes.

Absorbable sutures constitute most buried sutures in cutaneous surgery and can be made of natural or synthetic fibers.² Absorbable sutures made from synthetic fibers are degraded by hydrolysis, in which water breaks down polymer chains of the suture filament. Natural absorbable sutures are composed of mammalian collagen; they are broken down by the enzymatic process of proteolysis.

Tensile strength is lost long before a suture is fully absorbed. Although synthetic fibers have, in general, higher tensile strength and generate less tissue inflammation, they take much longer to absorb.² During absorption, in some cases, a buried suture is pushed to the surface and extrudes along the wound edge or scar, which is known as spitting³ (Figure 1).

The Technique

Choice of suture material for buried sutures can influence the risk of spitting.

Factors Impacting Increased Spitting
The 3 most common absorbable sutures in dermatologic surgery include poliglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910, and polydioxanone; of them, polyglactin 910 has been found to have a higher rate of spitting than poliglecaprone 25 and polydioxanone.² However, because complete absorption of polydioxanone can take as long as 8 months, this suture might “spit” much later than polyglactin 910 or poliglecaprone 25, which typically are fully hydrolyzed by 3 and 4 months, respectively.² Placing sutures superficially in the dermis has been found to increase the rate of spitting.⁵ Throwing more knots per closure also has been found to increase the rate of spitting.⁵

How to Decrease Spitting
Careful choice of suture material and proper depth of suture placement might decrease the risk for spitting in dermatologic surgery. Furthermore, if polyglactin 910 or a long-lasting suture is to be used, sutures should be placed deeply.

What to Do If Sutures Spit
When a suture has begun to spit, the extruding foreign material needs to be removed and the surgical site assessed for infection or abscess. Exposed suture material typically can be removed with forceps without local anesthesia. In some cases, fine-tipped Bishop-Harmon tissue forceps or jewelers forceps might be required.

If the suture cannot be removed completely, it should be trimmed as short as possible. This can be accomplished by pulling on the exposed end of the suture, tenting the skin, and trimming it as close as possible to the surface. Once the foreign material is removed, assessment for signs of infection is paramount.

How to Manage Infection—Postoperative infection associated with a spitting suture can take the form of a periwound cellulitis or stitch abscess.³ A stitch abscess can reflect a sterile inflammatory response to the buried suture or a true infection⁴; the former is more common.³ In the event of an infected stitch abscess, provide warm compresses, obtain specimens for culture, and prescribe antibiotics after the spitting suture has been removed. Incision and drainage also might be required if notable fluctuance is present.

It is crucial for dermatologic surgeons to identify and manage these complications. Figure 2 illustrates an algorithmic approach to managing spitting sutures.

Practical Implications

Spitting sutures are a common occurrence following dermatologic surgery that can lead to remarkable patient distress. Fortunately, in the absence of superimposed infection, spitting sutures have not been shown to worsen outcomes of healing and scarring.⁵ Nevertheless, it is important to identify and appropriately treat this common complication. The simple algorithm we provide (Figure 2) aids in cutaneous surgery by providing a straightforward approach to managing spitting sutures and their complications.

Practice Gap

It is well established that surgical complications and a poor scar outcome can have a remarkable impact on patient satisfaction.¹ A common complication following dermatologic surgery is suture spitting, in which a buried suture is extruded through the skin surface. When repairing a cutaneous defect following dermatologic surgery, absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures are placed under the skin surface to approximate wound edges, eliminate dead space, and reduce tension on the edges of the wound, improving the cosmetic outcomes.

Absorbable sutures constitute most buried sutures in cutaneous surgery and can be made of natural or synthetic fibers.² Absorbable sutures made from synthetic fibers are degraded by hydrolysis, in which water breaks down polymer chains of the suture filament. Natural absorbable sutures are composed of mammalian collagen; they are broken down by the enzymatic process of proteolysis.

Tensile strength is lost long before a suture is fully absorbed. Although synthetic fibers have, in general, higher tensile strength and generate less tissue inflammation, they take much longer to absorb.² During absorption, in some cases, a buried suture is pushed to the surface and extrudes along the wound edge or scar, which is known as spitting³ (Figure 1).

The Technique

Choice of suture material for buried sutures can influence the risk of spitting.

Factors Impacting Increased Spitting
The 3 most common absorbable sutures in dermatologic surgery include poliglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910, and polydioxanone; of them, polyglactin 910 has been found to have a higher rate of spitting than poliglecaprone 25 and polydioxanone.² However, because complete absorption of polydioxanone can take as long as 8 months, this suture might “spit” much later than polyglactin 910 or poliglecaprone 25, which typically are fully hydrolyzed by 3 and 4 months, respectively.² Placing sutures superficially in the dermis has been found to increase the rate of spitting.⁵ Throwing more knots per closure also has been found to increase the rate of spitting.⁵

How to Decrease Spitting
Careful choice of suture material and proper depth of suture placement might decrease the risk for spitting in dermatologic surgery. Furthermore, if polyglactin 910 or a long-lasting suture is to be used, sutures should be placed deeply.

What to Do If Sutures Spit
When a suture has begun to spit, the extruding foreign material needs to be removed and the surgical site assessed for infection or abscess. Exposed suture material typically can be removed with forceps without local anesthesia. In some cases, fine-tipped Bishop-Harmon tissue forceps or jewelers forceps might be required.

If the suture cannot be removed completely, it should be trimmed as short as possible. This can be accomplished by pulling on the exposed end of the suture, tenting the skin, and trimming it as close as possible to the surface. Once the foreign material is removed, assessment for signs of infection is paramount.

How to Manage Infection—Postoperative infection associated with a spitting suture can take the form of a periwound cellulitis or stitch abscess.³ A stitch abscess can reflect a sterile inflammatory response to the buried suture or a true infection⁴; the former is more common.³ In the event of an infected stitch abscess, provide warm compresses, obtain specimens for culture, and prescribe antibiotics after the spitting suture has been removed. Incision and drainage also might be required if notable fluctuance is present.

It is crucial for dermatologic surgeons to identify and manage these complications. Figure 2 illustrates an algorithmic approach to managing spitting sutures.

Practical Implications

Spitting sutures are a common occurrence following dermatologic surgery that can lead to remarkable patient distress. Fortunately, in the absence of superimposed infection, spitting sutures have not been shown to worsen outcomes of healing and scarring.⁵ Nevertheless, it is important to identify and appropriately treat this common complication. The simple algorithm we provide (Figure 2) aids in cutaneous surgery by providing a straightforward approach to managing spitting sutures and their complications.

Practice Gap

It is well established that surgical complications and a poor scar outcome can have a remarkable impact on patient satisfaction.¹ A common complication following dermatologic surgery is suture spitting, in which a buried suture is extruded through the skin surface. When repairing a cutaneous defect following dermatologic surgery, absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures are placed under the skin surface to approximate wound edges, eliminate dead space, and reduce tension on the edges of the wound, improving the cosmetic outcomes.

Absorbable sutures constitute most buried sutures in cutaneous surgery and can be made of natural or synthetic fibers.² Absorbable sutures made from synthetic fibers are degraded by hydrolysis, in which water breaks down polymer chains of the suture filament. Natural absorbable sutures are composed of mammalian collagen; they are broken down by the enzymatic process of proteolysis.

Tensile strength is lost long before a suture is fully absorbed. Although synthetic fibers have, in general, higher tensile strength and generate less tissue inflammation, they take much longer to absorb.² During absorption, in some cases, a buried suture is pushed to the surface and extrudes along the wound edge or scar, which is known as spitting³ (Figure 1).

The Technique

Choice of suture material for buried sutures can influence the risk of spitting.

Factors Impacting Increased Spitting
The 3 most common absorbable sutures in dermatologic surgery include poliglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910, and polydioxanone; of them, polyglactin 910 has been found to have a higher rate of spitting than poliglecaprone 25 and polydioxanone.² However, because complete absorption of polydioxanone can take as long as 8 months, this suture might “spit” much later than polyglactin 910 or poliglecaprone 25, which typically are fully hydrolyzed by 3 and 4 months, respectively.² Placing sutures superficially in the dermis has been found to increase the rate of spitting.⁵ Throwing more knots per closure also has been found to increase the rate of spitting.⁵

How to Decrease Spitting
Careful choice of suture material and proper depth of suture placement might decrease the risk for spitting in dermatologic surgery. Furthermore, if polyglactin 910 or a long-lasting suture is to be used, sutures should be placed deeply.

What to Do If Sutures Spit
When a suture has begun to spit, the extruding foreign material needs to be removed and the surgical site assessed for infection or abscess. Exposed suture material typically can be removed with forceps without local anesthesia. In some cases, fine-tipped Bishop-Harmon tissue forceps or jewelers forceps might be required.

If the suture cannot be removed completely, it should be trimmed as short as possible. This can be accomplished by pulling on the exposed end of the suture, tenting the skin, and trimming it as close as possible to the surface. Once the foreign material is removed, assessment for signs of infection is paramount.

How to Manage Infection—Postoperative infection associated with a spitting suture can take the form of a periwound cellulitis or stitch abscess.³ A stitch abscess can reflect a sterile inflammatory response to the buried suture or a true infection⁴; the former is more common.³ In the event of an infected stitch abscess, provide warm compresses, obtain specimens for culture, and prescribe antibiotics after the spitting suture has been removed. Incision and drainage also might be required if notable fluctuance is present.

It is crucial for dermatologic surgeons to identify and manage these complications. Figure 2 illustrates an algorithmic approach to managing spitting sutures.

Practical Implications

Spitting sutures are a common occurrence following dermatologic surgery that can lead to remarkable patient distress. Fortunately, in the absence of superimposed infection, spitting sutures have not been shown to worsen outcomes of healing and scarring.⁵ Nevertheless, it is important to identify and appropriately treat this common complication. The simple algorithm we provide (Figure 2) aids in cutaneous surgery by providing a straightforward approach to managing spitting sutures and their complications.

The upper lip poses challenges during reconstruction. Distortion of well-defined anatomic structures, including the vermilion border, oral commissures, Cupid’s bow, and philtrum, leads to noticeable deformities. Furthermore, maintenance of upper and lower lip function is essential for verbal communication, facial expression, and controlled opening of the oral cavity.

Similar to a prior review focused on the lower lip,¹ we conducted a review of the literature using the PubMed database (1976-2017) and the following search terms: upper lip, lower lip, anatomy, comparison, cadaver, histology, local flap, and reconstruction. We reviewed studies that assessed anatomic and histologic characteristics of the upper and the lower lips, function of the upper lip, mechanics of local flaps, and upper lip reconstruction techniques including local flaps and regional flaps. Articles with an emphasis on free flaps were excluded.

The initial search resulted in 1326 articles. Of these, 1201 were excluded after abstracts were screened. Full-text review of the remaining 125 articles resulted in exclusion of 85 papers (9 foreign language, 4 duplicates, and 72 irrelevant). Among the 40 articles eligible for inclusion, 12 articles discussed anatomy and histology of the upper lip, 9 examined function of the upper lip, and 19 reviewed available techniques for reconstruction of the upper lip.

In this article, we review the anatomy and function of the upper lip as well as various repair techniques to provide the reconstructive surgeon with greater familiarity with the local flaps and an algorithmic approach for upper lip reconstruction.

Anatomic Characteristics of the Upper Lip

The muscular component of the upper lip primarily is comprised of the orbicularis oris (OO) muscle divided into 2 distinct concentric components: pars peripheralis and pars marginalis.^2,3 It is discontinuous in some individuals.⁴ Although OO is the primary muscle of the lower lip, the upper lip is remarkably complex. Orbicularis oris and 3 additional muscles contribute to upper lip function: depressor septi nasi, the alar portion of the nasalis, and levator labii superioris alaeque nasi (LLSAN).⁵

The modiolus, a muscular structure located just lateral to the commissures, serves as a convergence point for facial muscle animation and lip function while distributing contraction forces between the lips and face.⁶ It is imperative to preserve its location in reconstruction to allow for good functional and aesthetic outcomes.

The upper lip is divided into 3 distinct aesthetic subunits: the philtrum and 1 lateral subunit on each side.^7,8 Its unique surface features include the Cupid’s bow, vermilion tubercle, and philtral columns. The philtral columns are created by the dermal insertion on each side of the OO, which originates from the modiolus, decussates, and inserts into the skin of the contralateral philtral groove.^2,9-11 The OO has additional insertions into the dermis lateral to the philtrum.⁵ During its course across the midline, it decreases its insertions, leading to the formation and thinness of the philtral dimple.⁹ The philtral shape primarily is due to the intermingling of LLSAN and the pars peripheralis in an axial plane. The LLSAN enters superolateral to the ipsilateral philtral ridge and courses along this ridge to contribute to the philtral shape.² Formation of the philtrum’s contour arises from the opposing force of both muscles pulling the skin in opposite directions.^2,5 The vermilion tubercle arises from the dermal insertion of the pars marginalis originating from the ipsilateral modiolus and follows the vermilion border.² The Cupid’s bow is part of the white roll at the vermilion-cutaneous junction produced by the anterior projection of the pars peripheralis.¹⁰ The complex anatomy of this structure explains the intricacy of lip reconstructions in this area.

Function of the Upper Lip

Although the primary purpose of OO is sphincteric function, the upper lip’s key role is coverage of dentition and facial animation.¹² The latter is achieved through the relationship of multiple muscles, including levator labii superioris, levator septi nasi, risorius, zygomaticus minor, zygomaticus major, levator anguli oris, and buccinator.^7,13-17 Their smooth coordination results in various facial expressions. In comparison, the lower lip is critical for preservation of oral competence, prevention of drooling, eating, and speech due to the actions of OO and vertical support from the mentalis muscle.^1,18-22

Reconstructive Methods for the Upper Lip

Multiple options are available for reconstruction of upper lip defects, with the aim to preserve facial animation and coverage of dentition. When animation muscles are involved, restoring function is the goal, which can be achieved by placing sutures to reapproximate the muscle edges in smaller defects or anchor the remaining muscle edge to preserve deep structures in larger defects, respecting the vector of contraction and attempting simulation of the muscle function. Additionally, restoration of the continuity of OO also is important for good aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Janis²³ proposed the rule of thirds to approach upper and lower lip reconstruction. Using these rules, we briefly analyze the available flaps focusing on animation, OO restoration, preservation of the modiolus position, and sensation for each (eTable).

Nasolabial (ie, melolabial) flaps are suggested for repair of defects up to one-third of the upper lip, especially when the vermilion is unaffected, or in lateral defects with or without commissure involvement.^7,24-28 This flap is based on the facial artery and may be used as a direct transposition, V-Y advancement, or island flap with good aesthetic and functional outcomes (Figure 1).^29,30 There is limited literature regarding the effects on animation. However, it may be beneficial in avoiding microstomia, as regional tissue is transferred from the cheek area, maintaining upper lip length. Additionally, the location of the modiolus often is unaffected, especially when the flap is harvested above the level of the muscle, providing superior facial animation function. Flap design is critical in areas lateral to the commissure and over the modiolus, as distortion of its position can occur.²⁶ Similar to crescentic advancement, it is important to exercise caution in male patients, as non–hair-bearing tissue can be transferred to the upper lip. Reported adverse outcomes of the nasolabial flap include a thin flat upper lip, obliteration of the Cupid’s bow, and hypoesthesia that may improve over time.³⁰

The Yu flap, a sensate single-stage rotational advancement flap, can be used in a variety of ways for repair of upper lip defects, depending on the size and location.²⁶ Lateral defects up to one-half of the upper lip should be repaired with a unilateral reverse Yu flap, central defects up to one-half of the upper lip can be reconstructed with bilateral reverse Yu flaps, and defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip can be repaired with bilateral Yu flaps. This flap restores OO continuity and thus preserves sphincter function, minimizes oral incompetence, and has a low risk of microstomia. The muscles of facial animation are preserved, yet the modiolus is not. Good aesthetic outcomes have been reported depending on the location of the Yu flap because scars can be placed in the nasolabial sulcus, commissures, or medially to recreate the philtrum.²⁶

The Estlander flap is a single-stage flap utilizing donor tissue from the opposing lip for reconstruction of lateral defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip with commissure and philtrum involvement (Figure 3).^8,23,32 It is an insensate flap that alters the position of the modiolus, distorting oral and facial animation.²³ The superomedial position of the modiolus is better tolerated in the upper lip because it increases the relaxation tone of the lower lip and simulates the vector of contraction of major animation muscles, positively impacting the sphincteric function of the reconstructed lip. Sphincteric function action is not as impaired compared with the lower lip because the new position of the modiolus tightens the lower lip and prevents drooling.³³ When designing the flap, one should consider that the inferior labial artery has been reported to remain with 10 mm of the superior border of the lower lip; therefore, pedicles of the Abbe and Estlander flaps should be at least 10 mm from the vermilion border to preserve vascular supply.^34,35

The Karapandzic flap, a modified Gilles fan flap, can be employed for repair of central defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip.^{8,23,32,36-39} The bilateral advancement of full-thickness adjacent tissue edges preserves neurovascular structures allowing sensation and restores OO continuation.⁴⁰ Prior studies have shown the average distance of the superior labial artery emergence from the facial artery and labial commissure is 12.1 mm; thus, at least 12.1 mm of tissue from the commissure should be preserved to prevent vascular compromise in Karapandzic flaps.^34,35 The modiolus position is altered, and facial animation muscles are disrupted, consequently impairing facial animation, especially elevation of the lip.³⁶ The philtrum is obliterated, producing unfavorable aesthetic outcomes. Finally, the upper lip is thinner and smaller in volume than the lower lip, increasing the risk for microstomia compared with the lower lip with a similar reconstructive technique.³⁶

Defects larger than two-thirds of the upper lip require a Bernard Burrow flap, distant free flap, or combination of multiple regional and local flaps dependent on the characteristics of the defect.^36,41 Distant free flaps are beyond the scope of this review. The Bernard Burrow flap consists of bilaterally opposing cheek advancement flaps. It is an insensate flap that does not restore OO continuity, producing minimal muscle function and poor animation. Microstomia is a common adverse outcome.³⁶

Conclusion

Comprehensive understanding of labial anatomy and its intimate relationship to function and aesthetics of the upper lip are critical. Flap anatomy and mechanics are key factors for successful reconstruction. The purpose of this article is to utilize knowledge of histology, anatomy, and function of the upper lip to improve the outcomes of reconstruction. The Abbe flap often is utilized for reconstruction of the philtrum and central upper lip defects, though it is a less desirable option for lower lip reconstruction. The Karapandzic flap, while sensate and restorative of OO continuity, may have less optimal functional and cosmetic results compared with its use in the lower lip. Regarding lateral defects involving the commissure, the Estlander flap provides a reasonable option for the upper lip when compared with its use in lower lip defects, where outcomes are usually inferior.

The upper lip poses challenges during reconstruction. Distortion of well-defined anatomic structures, including the vermilion border, oral commissures, Cupid’s bow, and philtrum, leads to noticeable deformities. Furthermore, maintenance of upper and lower lip function is essential for verbal communication, facial expression, and controlled opening of the oral cavity.

Similar to a prior review focused on the lower lip,¹ we conducted a review of the literature using the PubMed database (1976-2017) and the following search terms: upper lip, lower lip, anatomy, comparison, cadaver, histology, local flap, and reconstruction. We reviewed studies that assessed anatomic and histologic characteristics of the upper and the lower lips, function of the upper lip, mechanics of local flaps, and upper lip reconstruction techniques including local flaps and regional flaps. Articles with an emphasis on free flaps were excluded.

The initial search resulted in 1326 articles. Of these, 1201 were excluded after abstracts were screened. Full-text review of the remaining 125 articles resulted in exclusion of 85 papers (9 foreign language, 4 duplicates, and 72 irrelevant). Among the 40 articles eligible for inclusion, 12 articles discussed anatomy and histology of the upper lip, 9 examined function of the upper lip, and 19 reviewed available techniques for reconstruction of the upper lip.

In this article, we review the anatomy and function of the upper lip as well as various repair techniques to provide the reconstructive surgeon with greater familiarity with the local flaps and an algorithmic approach for upper lip reconstruction.

Anatomic Characteristics of the Upper Lip

The muscular component of the upper lip primarily is comprised of the orbicularis oris (OO) muscle divided into 2 distinct concentric components: pars peripheralis and pars marginalis.^2,3 It is discontinuous in some individuals.⁴ Although OO is the primary muscle of the lower lip, the upper lip is remarkably complex. Orbicularis oris and 3 additional muscles contribute to upper lip function: depressor septi nasi, the alar portion of the nasalis, and levator labii superioris alaeque nasi (LLSAN).⁵

The modiolus, a muscular structure located just lateral to the commissures, serves as a convergence point for facial muscle animation and lip function while distributing contraction forces between the lips and face.⁶ It is imperative to preserve its location in reconstruction to allow for good functional and aesthetic outcomes.

The upper lip is divided into 3 distinct aesthetic subunits: the philtrum and 1 lateral subunit on each side.^7,8 Its unique surface features include the Cupid’s bow, vermilion tubercle, and philtral columns. The philtral columns are created by the dermal insertion on each side of the OO, which originates from the modiolus, decussates, and inserts into the skin of the contralateral philtral groove.^2,9-11 The OO has additional insertions into the dermis lateral to the philtrum.⁵ During its course across the midline, it decreases its insertions, leading to the formation and thinness of the philtral dimple.⁹ The philtral shape primarily is due to the intermingling of LLSAN and the pars peripheralis in an axial plane. The LLSAN enters superolateral to the ipsilateral philtral ridge and courses along this ridge to contribute to the philtral shape.² Formation of the philtrum’s contour arises from the opposing force of both muscles pulling the skin in opposite directions.^2,5 The vermilion tubercle arises from the dermal insertion of the pars marginalis originating from the ipsilateral modiolus and follows the vermilion border.² The Cupid’s bow is part of the white roll at the vermilion-cutaneous junction produced by the anterior projection of the pars peripheralis.¹⁰ The complex anatomy of this structure explains the intricacy of lip reconstructions in this area.

Function of the Upper Lip

Although the primary purpose of OO is sphincteric function, the upper lip’s key role is coverage of dentition and facial animation.¹² The latter is achieved through the relationship of multiple muscles, including levator labii superioris, levator septi nasi, risorius, zygomaticus minor, zygomaticus major, levator anguli oris, and buccinator.^7,13-17 Their smooth coordination results in various facial expressions. In comparison, the lower lip is critical for preservation of oral competence, prevention of drooling, eating, and speech due to the actions of OO and vertical support from the mentalis muscle.^1,18-22

Reconstructive Methods for the Upper Lip

Multiple options are available for reconstruction of upper lip defects, with the aim to preserve facial animation and coverage of dentition. When animation muscles are involved, restoring function is the goal, which can be achieved by placing sutures to reapproximate the muscle edges in smaller defects or anchor the remaining muscle edge to preserve deep structures in larger defects, respecting the vector of contraction and attempting simulation of the muscle function. Additionally, restoration of the continuity of OO also is important for good aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Janis²³ proposed the rule of thirds to approach upper and lower lip reconstruction. Using these rules, we briefly analyze the available flaps focusing on animation, OO restoration, preservation of the modiolus position, and sensation for each (eTable).

Nasolabial (ie, melolabial) flaps are suggested for repair of defects up to one-third of the upper lip, especially when the vermilion is unaffected, or in lateral defects with or without commissure involvement.^7,24-28 This flap is based on the facial artery and may be used as a direct transposition, V-Y advancement, or island flap with good aesthetic and functional outcomes (Figure 1).^29,30 There is limited literature regarding the effects on animation. However, it may be beneficial in avoiding microstomia, as regional tissue is transferred from the cheek area, maintaining upper lip length. Additionally, the location of the modiolus often is unaffected, especially when the flap is harvested above the level of the muscle, providing superior facial animation function. Flap design is critical in areas lateral to the commissure and over the modiolus, as distortion of its position can occur.²⁶ Similar to crescentic advancement, it is important to exercise caution in male patients, as non–hair-bearing tissue can be transferred to the upper lip. Reported adverse outcomes of the nasolabial flap include a thin flat upper lip, obliteration of the Cupid’s bow, and hypoesthesia that may improve over time.³⁰

The Yu flap, a sensate single-stage rotational advancement flap, can be used in a variety of ways for repair of upper lip defects, depending on the size and location.²⁶ Lateral defects up to one-half of the upper lip should be repaired with a unilateral reverse Yu flap, central defects up to one-half of the upper lip can be reconstructed with bilateral reverse Yu flaps, and defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip can be repaired with bilateral Yu flaps. This flap restores OO continuity and thus preserves sphincter function, minimizes oral incompetence, and has a low risk of microstomia. The muscles of facial animation are preserved, yet the modiolus is not. Good aesthetic outcomes have been reported depending on the location of the Yu flap because scars can be placed in the nasolabial sulcus, commissures, or medially to recreate the philtrum.²⁶

The Estlander flap is a single-stage flap utilizing donor tissue from the opposing lip for reconstruction of lateral defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip with commissure and philtrum involvement (Figure 3).^8,23,32 It is an insensate flap that alters the position of the modiolus, distorting oral and facial animation.²³ The superomedial position of the modiolus is better tolerated in the upper lip because it increases the relaxation tone of the lower lip and simulates the vector of contraction of major animation muscles, positively impacting the sphincteric function of the reconstructed lip. Sphincteric function action is not as impaired compared with the lower lip because the new position of the modiolus tightens the lower lip and prevents drooling.³³ When designing the flap, one should consider that the inferior labial artery has been reported to remain with 10 mm of the superior border of the lower lip; therefore, pedicles of the Abbe and Estlander flaps should be at least 10 mm from the vermilion border to preserve vascular supply.^34,35

The Karapandzic flap, a modified Gilles fan flap, can be employed for repair of central defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip.^{8,23,32,36-39} The bilateral advancement of full-thickness adjacent tissue edges preserves neurovascular structures allowing sensation and restores OO continuation.⁴⁰ Prior studies have shown the average distance of the superior labial artery emergence from the facial artery and labial commissure is 12.1 mm; thus, at least 12.1 mm of tissue from the commissure should be preserved to prevent vascular compromise in Karapandzic flaps.^34,35 The modiolus position is altered, and facial animation muscles are disrupted, consequently impairing facial animation, especially elevation of the lip.³⁶ The philtrum is obliterated, producing unfavorable aesthetic outcomes. Finally, the upper lip is thinner and smaller in volume than the lower lip, increasing the risk for microstomia compared with the lower lip with a similar reconstructive technique.³⁶

Defects larger than two-thirds of the upper lip require a Bernard Burrow flap, distant free flap, or combination of multiple regional and local flaps dependent on the characteristics of the defect.^36,41 Distant free flaps are beyond the scope of this review. The Bernard Burrow flap consists of bilaterally opposing cheek advancement flaps. It is an insensate flap that does not restore OO continuity, producing minimal muscle function and poor animation. Microstomia is a common adverse outcome.³⁶

Conclusion

Comprehensive understanding of labial anatomy and its intimate relationship to function and aesthetics of the upper lip are critical. Flap anatomy and mechanics are key factors for successful reconstruction. The purpose of this article is to utilize knowledge of histology, anatomy, and function of the upper lip to improve the outcomes of reconstruction. The Abbe flap often is utilized for reconstruction of the philtrum and central upper lip defects, though it is a less desirable option for lower lip reconstruction. The Karapandzic flap, while sensate and restorative of OO continuity, may have less optimal functional and cosmetic results compared with its use in the lower lip. Regarding lateral defects involving the commissure, the Estlander flap provides a reasonable option for the upper lip when compared with its use in lower lip defects, where outcomes are usually inferior.

The upper lip poses challenges during reconstruction. Distortion of well-defined anatomic structures, including the vermilion border, oral commissures, Cupid’s bow, and philtrum, leads to noticeable deformities. Furthermore, maintenance of upper and lower lip function is essential for verbal communication, facial expression, and controlled opening of the oral cavity.

Similar to a prior review focused on the lower lip,¹ we conducted a review of the literature using the PubMed database (1976-2017) and the following search terms: upper lip, lower lip, anatomy, comparison, cadaver, histology, local flap, and reconstruction. We reviewed studies that assessed anatomic and histologic characteristics of the upper and the lower lips, function of the upper lip, mechanics of local flaps, and upper lip reconstruction techniques including local flaps and regional flaps. Articles with an emphasis on free flaps were excluded.

The initial search resulted in 1326 articles. Of these, 1201 were excluded after abstracts were screened. Full-text review of the remaining 125 articles resulted in exclusion of 85 papers (9 foreign language, 4 duplicates, and 72 irrelevant). Among the 40 articles eligible for inclusion, 12 articles discussed anatomy and histology of the upper lip, 9 examined function of the upper lip, and 19 reviewed available techniques for reconstruction of the upper lip.

In this article, we review the anatomy and function of the upper lip as well as various repair techniques to provide the reconstructive surgeon with greater familiarity with the local flaps and an algorithmic approach for upper lip reconstruction.

Anatomic Characteristics of the Upper Lip

The muscular component of the upper lip primarily is comprised of the orbicularis oris (OO) muscle divided into 2 distinct concentric components: pars peripheralis and pars marginalis.^2,3 It is discontinuous in some individuals.⁴ Although OO is the primary muscle of the lower lip, the upper lip is remarkably complex. Orbicularis oris and 3 additional muscles contribute to upper lip function: depressor septi nasi, the alar portion of the nasalis, and levator labii superioris alaeque nasi (LLSAN).⁵

The modiolus, a muscular structure located just lateral to the commissures, serves as a convergence point for facial muscle animation and lip function while distributing contraction forces between the lips and face.⁶ It is imperative to preserve its location in reconstruction to allow for good functional and aesthetic outcomes.

The upper lip is divided into 3 distinct aesthetic subunits: the philtrum and 1 lateral subunit on each side.^7,8 Its unique surface features include the Cupid’s bow, vermilion tubercle, and philtral columns. The philtral columns are created by the dermal insertion on each side of the OO, which originates from the modiolus, decussates, and inserts into the skin of the contralateral philtral groove.^2,9-11 The OO has additional insertions into the dermis lateral to the philtrum.⁵ During its course across the midline, it decreases its insertions, leading to the formation and thinness of the philtral dimple.⁹ The philtral shape primarily is due to the intermingling of LLSAN and the pars peripheralis in an axial plane. The LLSAN enters superolateral to the ipsilateral philtral ridge and courses along this ridge to contribute to the philtral shape.² Formation of the philtrum’s contour arises from the opposing force of both muscles pulling the skin in opposite directions.^2,5 The vermilion tubercle arises from the dermal insertion of the pars marginalis originating from the ipsilateral modiolus and follows the vermilion border.² The Cupid’s bow is part of the white roll at the vermilion-cutaneous junction produced by the anterior projection of the pars peripheralis.¹⁰ The complex anatomy of this structure explains the intricacy of lip reconstructions in this area.

Function of the Upper Lip

Although the primary purpose of OO is sphincteric function, the upper lip’s key role is coverage of dentition and facial animation.¹² The latter is achieved through the relationship of multiple muscles, including levator labii superioris, levator septi nasi, risorius, zygomaticus minor, zygomaticus major, levator anguli oris, and buccinator.^7,13-17 Their smooth coordination results in various facial expressions. In comparison, the lower lip is critical for preservation of oral competence, prevention of drooling, eating, and speech due to the actions of OO and vertical support from the mentalis muscle.^1,18-22

Reconstructive Methods for the Upper Lip

Multiple options are available for reconstruction of upper lip defects, with the aim to preserve facial animation and coverage of dentition. When animation muscles are involved, restoring function is the goal, which can be achieved by placing sutures to reapproximate the muscle edges in smaller defects or anchor the remaining muscle edge to preserve deep structures in larger defects, respecting the vector of contraction and attempting simulation of the muscle function. Additionally, restoration of the continuity of OO also is important for good aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Janis²³ proposed the rule of thirds to approach upper and lower lip reconstruction. Using these rules, we briefly analyze the available flaps focusing on animation, OO restoration, preservation of the modiolus position, and sensation for each (eTable).

Nasolabial (ie, melolabial) flaps are suggested for repair of defects up to one-third of the upper lip, especially when the vermilion is unaffected, or in lateral defects with or without commissure involvement.^7,24-28 This flap is based on the facial artery and may be used as a direct transposition, V-Y advancement, or island flap with good aesthetic and functional outcomes (Figure 1).^29,30 There is limited literature regarding the effects on animation. However, it may be beneficial in avoiding microstomia, as regional tissue is transferred from the cheek area, maintaining upper lip length. Additionally, the location of the modiolus often is unaffected, especially when the flap is harvested above the level of the muscle, providing superior facial animation function. Flap design is critical in areas lateral to the commissure and over the modiolus, as distortion of its position can occur.²⁶ Similar to crescentic advancement, it is important to exercise caution in male patients, as non–hair-bearing tissue can be transferred to the upper lip. Reported adverse outcomes of the nasolabial flap include a thin flat upper lip, obliteration of the Cupid’s bow, and hypoesthesia that may improve over time.³⁰

The Yu flap, a sensate single-stage rotational advancement flap, can be used in a variety of ways for repair of upper lip defects, depending on the size and location.²⁶ Lateral defects up to one-half of the upper lip should be repaired with a unilateral reverse Yu flap, central defects up to one-half of the upper lip can be reconstructed with bilateral reverse Yu flaps, and defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip can be repaired with bilateral Yu flaps. This flap restores OO continuity and thus preserves sphincter function, minimizes oral incompetence, and has a low risk of microstomia. The muscles of facial animation are preserved, yet the modiolus is not. Good aesthetic outcomes have been reported depending on the location of the Yu flap because scars can be placed in the nasolabial sulcus, commissures, or medially to recreate the philtrum.²⁶

The Estlander flap is a single-stage flap utilizing donor tissue from the opposing lip for reconstruction of lateral defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip with commissure and philtrum involvement (Figure 3).^8,23,32 It is an insensate flap that alters the position of the modiolus, distorting oral and facial animation.²³ The superomedial position of the modiolus is better tolerated in the upper lip because it increases the relaxation tone of the lower lip and simulates the vector of contraction of major animation muscles, positively impacting the sphincteric function of the reconstructed lip. Sphincteric function action is not as impaired compared with the lower lip because the new position of the modiolus tightens the lower lip and prevents drooling.³³ When designing the flap, one should consider that the inferior labial artery has been reported to remain with 10 mm of the superior border of the lower lip; therefore, pedicles of the Abbe and Estlander flaps should be at least 10 mm from the vermilion border to preserve vascular supply.^34,35

The Karapandzic flap, a modified Gilles fan flap, can be employed for repair of central defects up to two-thirds of the upper lip.^{8,23,32,36-39} The bilateral advancement of full-thickness adjacent tissue edges preserves neurovascular structures allowing sensation and restores OO continuation.⁴⁰ Prior studies have shown the average distance of the superior labial artery emergence from the facial artery and labial commissure is 12.1 mm; thus, at least 12.1 mm of tissue from the commissure should be preserved to prevent vascular compromise in Karapandzic flaps.^34,35 The modiolus position is altered, and facial animation muscles are disrupted, consequently impairing facial animation, especially elevation of the lip.³⁶ The philtrum is obliterated, producing unfavorable aesthetic outcomes. Finally, the upper lip is thinner and smaller in volume than the lower lip, increasing the risk for microstomia compared with the lower lip with a similar reconstructive technique.³⁶

Defects larger than two-thirds of the upper lip require a Bernard Burrow flap, distant free flap, or combination of multiple regional and local flaps dependent on the characteristics of the defect.^36,41 Distant free flaps are beyond the scope of this review. The Bernard Burrow flap consists of bilaterally opposing cheek advancement flaps. It is an insensate flap that does not restore OO continuity, producing minimal muscle function and poor animation. Microstomia is a common adverse outcome.³⁶

Conclusion

Comprehensive understanding of labial anatomy and its intimate relationship to function and aesthetics of the upper lip are critical. Flap anatomy and mechanics are key factors for successful reconstruction. The purpose of this article is to utilize knowledge of histology, anatomy, and function of the upper lip to improve the outcomes of reconstruction. The Abbe flap often is utilized for reconstruction of the philtrum and central upper lip defects, though it is a less desirable option for lower lip reconstruction. The Karapandzic flap, while sensate and restorative of OO continuity, may have less optimal functional and cosmetic results compared with its use in the lower lip. Regarding lateral defects involving the commissure, the Estlander flap provides a reasonable option for the upper lip when compared with its use in lower lip defects, where outcomes are usually inferior.

Practice Gap

Cutaneous head and neck reconstruction following Mohs micrographic surgery frequently presents the surgical dilemma of dog-ear formation during wound closure, often necessitating excision of additional tissue to correct the standing cone, which could pose the risk for an undesirable tension vector as well as encroachment upon additional cosmetic units or sensitive anatomic structures such as a free margin. A classic Z-plasty is a transposition flap (by definition, translocation of tissue laterally about a pivot point) that corrects a dog-ear deformity without skin excision by recruiting tissue from the axis of the standing cone and redistributing it along another.

The Technique

A classic Z-plasty is designed with 3 equal limb lengths (<1 cm each) at 60° angles, abutting the pedicle of the rotation or advancement flap. The limbs can extend away from the pedicle of the flap to minimize vascular compromise. In our patient, the theoretical standing cone was located at the lateral aspect of an O to L advancement flap (Figure 1). The 2 identical triangular flaps were elevated (Figure 2A), transposed around the pivot point (Figure 2B), and inset (Figure 3). The standing cone was corrected by redistribution of tissue without excision of additional tissue, resulting in a softer and thinner scar 2 weeks (Figure 4A) and 4 months (Figure 4B) postoperatively.

Practice Implications

This technique can be used to correct cones following primary wound repairs or flaps. The primary advantage of this technique for dog-ear correction is tissue sparing. Disadvantages include more complex surgical planning and longer scar length compared to excisional corrective techniques. Additionally, Z-plasty requires more time to execute compared to simpler techniques.^1,2

Practice Gap

Cutaneous head and neck reconstruction following Mohs micrographic surgery frequently presents the surgical dilemma of dog-ear formation during wound closure, often necessitating excision of additional tissue to correct the standing cone, which could pose the risk for an undesirable tension vector as well as encroachment upon additional cosmetic units or sensitive anatomic structures such as a free margin. A classic Z-plasty is a transposition flap (by definition, translocation of tissue laterally about a pivot point) that corrects a dog-ear deformity without skin excision by recruiting tissue from the axis of the standing cone and redistributing it along another.

The Technique

A classic Z-plasty is designed with 3 equal limb lengths (<1 cm each) at 60° angles, abutting the pedicle of the rotation or advancement flap. The limbs can extend away from the pedicle of the flap to minimize vascular compromise. In our patient, the theoretical standing cone was located at the lateral aspect of an O to L advancement flap (Figure 1). The 2 identical triangular flaps were elevated (Figure 2A), transposed around the pivot point (Figure 2B), and inset (Figure 3). The standing cone was corrected by redistribution of tissue without excision of additional tissue, resulting in a softer and thinner scar 2 weeks (Figure 4A) and 4 months (Figure 4B) postoperatively.

Practice Implications

This technique can be used to correct cones following primary wound repairs or flaps. The primary advantage of this technique for dog-ear correction is tissue sparing. Disadvantages include more complex surgical planning and longer scar length compared to excisional corrective techniques. Additionally, Z-plasty requires more time to execute compared to simpler techniques.^1,2

Practice Gap

Cutaneous head and neck reconstruction following Mohs micrographic surgery frequently presents the surgical dilemma of dog-ear formation during wound closure, often necessitating excision of additional tissue to correct the standing cone, which could pose the risk for an undesirable tension vector as well as encroachment upon additional cosmetic units or sensitive anatomic structures such as a free margin. A classic Z-plasty is a transposition flap (by definition, translocation of tissue laterally about a pivot point) that corrects a dog-ear deformity without skin excision by recruiting tissue from the axis of the standing cone and redistributing it along another.

The Technique

A classic Z-plasty is designed with 3 equal limb lengths (<1 cm each) at 60° angles, abutting the pedicle of the rotation or advancement flap. The limbs can extend away from the pedicle of the flap to minimize vascular compromise. In our patient, the theoretical standing cone was located at the lateral aspect of an O to L advancement flap (Figure 1). The 2 identical triangular flaps were elevated (Figure 2A), transposed around the pivot point (Figure 2B), and inset (Figure 3). The standing cone was corrected by redistribution of tissue without excision of additional tissue, resulting in a softer and thinner scar 2 weeks (Figure 4A) and 4 months (Figure 4B) postoperatively.

Practice Implications

This technique can be used to correct cones following primary wound repairs or flaps. The primary advantage of this technique for dog-ear correction is tissue sparing. Disadvantages include more complex surgical planning and longer scar length compared to excisional corrective techniques. Additionally, Z-plasty requires more time to execute compared to simpler techniques.^1,2

To the Editor:

Ongoing concern about the high costs of dermatology residency interviews has led to several cost-saving proposals, as presented by Hussain¹ in the Cutis article, “Reducing the Cost of Dermatology Residency Applications: An Applicant’s Perspective.” Additional strategies to reduce applicant costs include eliminating travel costs through video or telephone interviews, interviewing students who are visiting during their away rotation, and developing and implementing a mechanism to exempt students from participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).² A potential mechanism for the latter suggestion could be a binding early decision program for dermatology residency. Binding early decision has been successfully employed by medical schools for many years.³ Under this model for dermatology residency, applicants may apply to 1 dermatology residency program by the early deadline and the program would have the option of accepting as many of the early-decision applicants as the number of residency positions in their program permits, allowing nonadmitted and nonparticipating applicants time to apply through the usual ERAS/NRMP cycle. There are several potential advantages to this model that would decrease the number of applicants applying to all the available dermatology residency programs each cycle.

First, because applicants would be limited to 1 application to participate in the early decision program, they must realistically consider the strength of their application and weigh their chances for acceptance to that program. Programs could facilitate the process by becoming more transparent about the type of applicants that have previously matched in their program.² If an early-decision applicant successfully matches, that applicant would be prohibited from applying to additional dermatology residency programs through ERAS and NRMP during that application cycle.

Second, early-decision actions by programs—probably by August 1, a time when most third-year medical students have completed their academic year—would be determined before ERAS releases applications to residency programs. This timeline would remove successful applicants in the early decision program from going to additional interviews and incurring the associated travel costs.

Third, early decision could be potentially beneficial to applicants who are tied to a specific geographic region for training and to programs with specific program needs, such as expertise in specific areas of dermatology research or areas of clinical need (eg, adding a dermatopathologist, plastic surgeon, internist, or a pediatrician to the residency program who now wants dermatology training) or other program needs.

Fourth, application costs could potentially be lower for early-decision applicants than through the present application process if participating institutions waived application fees. Applicants would still be responsible for submitting requested academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, and travel expenses if an on-site interview is requested by the program.

Finally, highly desirable applicants who are offered a position through early decision would result in more opportunities for other applicants to interview for the remaining available residency positions through ERAS/NRMP.

Downsides to early decision for dermatology residency include the inability of applicants to compare programs to one another through their personal experiences, such as prior rotations or interviews, and for programs to compare applicants though the interview process and away rotations. In addition, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores and Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society status and other academic honors may not be available to programs to consider at the time of early decision. Cooperation would be needed with ERAS and NRMP to create an early decision program for dermatology residency.

One other potential consequence of the early match could involve instances of strained relationships between research fellows and their sponsoring institution or dermatology program. Research fellows often match at their research institution, and failing to early match could potentially sour the relationship between the applicant and the program, thus leading to a less productive year. However, many programs participating in an early match will probably have additional residency positions remaining in the traditional match that would be still available to the fellows.

The concept of an early-binding residency match process has the potential to save both time and money for programs and applicants. Although an early-match process would have many positive effects, there also would be inherent downsides that accompany such a system. Nonetheless, an early-match process in dermatology has the prospect of efficiently pairing applicants and programs that feel strongly about each other while simplifying the match process and reducing costs for all parties involved.

References

1. Hussain AN. Reducing the cost of dermatology residency applications: an applicant’s perspective. Cutis. 2019;104:352-353.

2. Weisert E, Phan M. Thoughts on reducing the cost for dermatology residency applications. DIG@UTMB blog. http://digutmb.blogspot.com/2019/12/thoughts-on-reducing-cost-for.html. Published December 23, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2020.

3. Early decision program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/early-decision-program/. Accessed April 8, 2020.

Author’s Response

The early decision option for dermatology residency applications would be a welcomed addition to the process but may be complicated by 2 recent events: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the change of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting to a pass/fail system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused remarkable economic distress and likely affects medical students more acutely given their high levels of debt. As Ryan and Wagner observed, one advantage of the early-decision option would be financial relief for certain students. If applicants successfully match during the early-decision phase, they will not need to apply to any additional dermatology programs and also can target their preliminary-year applications to the geographic region where they have already matched.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may further reduce early applicants’ ability to visit programs in person. Various medical schools have curtailed away rotations, and programs may opt for virtual interviews in accordance with social distancing guidelines.¹ Thus, early applicants will have even fewer opportunities to compare programs before they must make a binding decision about their residency placement. Although away rotations and interview travel are some of the largest drivers of application cost,² reducing costs in this way might shortchange both students and programs.

Arguably, the change in USMLE Step 1 score reporting beginning in 2022 may impact residency selection for a longer period of time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Program directors cited USMLE Step 1 scores as one of the main factors determining which applicants may be invited to interview.³ The lack of numerical USMLE Step 1 scores may encourage programs to place more weight on other metrics such as USMLE Step 2 CK scores or Alpha Omega Alpha membership.⁴ However, as Ryan and Wagner point out, such metrics may not be available in time for early-decision applicants.

As such, future program directors will have precious little information to screen early-decision applicants and may need to conduct holistic application review. This would require increased time and manpower compared to screening based on traditional metrics but may lead to a better “fit” for an applicant with a residency.

In general, implementation of any early decision program would benefit dermatology applicants as a group by removing elite candidates from the applicant pool. According to National Resident Matching Program data, just 3% of dermatology applicants account for more than 12% of overall interviews.⁵ In other words, a small group of the strongest applicants receives a lion’s share of interviews, crowding out many other candidates. Removing these top-tier applicants likely would provide remaining applicants with a higher return on investment per application, and students may choose to save money by applying to fewer programs.

Adopting early-decision options within the dermatology match may be complicated given the COVID-19 pandemic and USMLE score changes but may spur positive changes in the process while also reducing the financial burden on applicants.

Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP

From Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP (aamir.nav.hussain@gmail.com).

References

1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the VSLO program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/attending-medical-school/article/coronavirus-covid-19-and-vslo-program/. Accessed April 17, 2020.

2. Mansouri B, Walker GD, Mitchell J, et al. The cost of applying to dermatology residency: 2014 data estimates. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:754-756.

3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2018. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NRMP-2018-Program-Director-Survey-for-WWW.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed April 17, 2020.

4. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? [published online March 6, 2020]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2950.

5. Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, et al. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:627-633.

To the Editor:

Ongoing concern about the high costs of dermatology residency interviews has led to several cost-saving proposals, as presented by Hussain¹ in the Cutis article, “Reducing the Cost of Dermatology Residency Applications: An Applicant’s Perspective.” Additional strategies to reduce applicant costs include eliminating travel costs through video or telephone interviews, interviewing students who are visiting during their away rotation, and developing and implementing a mechanism to exempt students from participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).² A potential mechanism for the latter suggestion could be a binding early decision program for dermatology residency. Binding early decision has been successfully employed by medical schools for many years.³ Under this model for dermatology residency, applicants may apply to 1 dermatology residency program by the early deadline and the program would have the option of accepting as many of the early-decision applicants as the number of residency positions in their program permits, allowing nonadmitted and nonparticipating applicants time to apply through the usual ERAS/NRMP cycle. There are several potential advantages to this model that would decrease the number of applicants applying to all the available dermatology residency programs each cycle.

First, because applicants would be limited to 1 application to participate in the early decision program, they must realistically consider the strength of their application and weigh their chances for acceptance to that program. Programs could facilitate the process by becoming more transparent about the type of applicants that have previously matched in their program.² If an early-decision applicant successfully matches, that applicant would be prohibited from applying to additional dermatology residency programs through ERAS and NRMP during that application cycle.

Second, early-decision actions by programs—probably by August 1, a time when most third-year medical students have completed their academic year—would be determined before ERAS releases applications to residency programs. This timeline would remove successful applicants in the early decision program from going to additional interviews and incurring the associated travel costs.

Third, early decision could be potentially beneficial to applicants who are tied to a specific geographic region for training and to programs with specific program needs, such as expertise in specific areas of dermatology research or areas of clinical need (eg, adding a dermatopathologist, plastic surgeon, internist, or a pediatrician to the residency program who now wants dermatology training) or other program needs.

Fourth, application costs could potentially be lower for early-decision applicants than through the present application process if participating institutions waived application fees. Applicants would still be responsible for submitting requested academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, and travel expenses if an on-site interview is requested by the program.

Finally, highly desirable applicants who are offered a position through early decision would result in more opportunities for other applicants to interview for the remaining available residency positions through ERAS/NRMP.

Downsides to early decision for dermatology residency include the inability of applicants to compare programs to one another through their personal experiences, such as prior rotations or interviews, and for programs to compare applicants though the interview process and away rotations. In addition, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores and Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society status and other academic honors may not be available to programs to consider at the time of early decision. Cooperation would be needed with ERAS and NRMP to create an early decision program for dermatology residency.

One other potential consequence of the early match could involve instances of strained relationships between research fellows and their sponsoring institution or dermatology program. Research fellows often match at their research institution, and failing to early match could potentially sour the relationship between the applicant and the program, thus leading to a less productive year. However, many programs participating in an early match will probably have additional residency positions remaining in the traditional match that would be still available to the fellows.

The concept of an early-binding residency match process has the potential to save both time and money for programs and applicants. Although an early-match process would have many positive effects, there also would be inherent downsides that accompany such a system. Nonetheless, an early-match process in dermatology has the prospect of efficiently pairing applicants and programs that feel strongly about each other while simplifying the match process and reducing costs for all parties involved.

References

1. Hussain AN. Reducing the cost of dermatology residency applications: an applicant’s perspective. Cutis. 2019;104:352-353.

2. Weisert E, Phan M. Thoughts on reducing the cost for dermatology residency applications. DIG@UTMB blog. http://digutmb.blogspot.com/2019/12/thoughts-on-reducing-cost-for.html. Published December 23, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2020.

3. Early decision program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/early-decision-program/. Accessed April 8, 2020.

Author’s Response

The early decision option for dermatology residency applications would be a welcomed addition to the process but may be complicated by 2 recent events: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the change of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting to a pass/fail system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused remarkable economic distress and likely affects medical students more acutely given their high levels of debt. As Ryan and Wagner observed, one advantage of the early-decision option would be financial relief for certain students. If applicants successfully match during the early-decision phase, they will not need to apply to any additional dermatology programs and also can target their preliminary-year applications to the geographic region where they have already matched.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may further reduce early applicants’ ability to visit programs in person. Various medical schools have curtailed away rotations, and programs may opt for virtual interviews in accordance with social distancing guidelines.¹ Thus, early applicants will have even fewer opportunities to compare programs before they must make a binding decision about their residency placement. Although away rotations and interview travel are some of the largest drivers of application cost,² reducing costs in this way might shortchange both students and programs.

Arguably, the change in USMLE Step 1 score reporting beginning in 2022 may impact residency selection for a longer period of time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Program directors cited USMLE Step 1 scores as one of the main factors determining which applicants may be invited to interview.³ The lack of numerical USMLE Step 1 scores may encourage programs to place more weight on other metrics such as USMLE Step 2 CK scores or Alpha Omega Alpha membership.⁴ However, as Ryan and Wagner point out, such metrics may not be available in time for early-decision applicants.

As such, future program directors will have precious little information to screen early-decision applicants and may need to conduct holistic application review. This would require increased time and manpower compared to screening based on traditional metrics but may lead to a better “fit” for an applicant with a residency.

In general, implementation of any early decision program would benefit dermatology applicants as a group by removing elite candidates from the applicant pool. According to National Resident Matching Program data, just 3% of dermatology applicants account for more than 12% of overall interviews.⁵ In other words, a small group of the strongest applicants receives a lion’s share of interviews, crowding out many other candidates. Removing these top-tier applicants likely would provide remaining applicants with a higher return on investment per application, and students may choose to save money by applying to fewer programs.

Adopting early-decision options within the dermatology match may be complicated given the COVID-19 pandemic and USMLE score changes but may spur positive changes in the process while also reducing the financial burden on applicants.

Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP

From Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP (aamir.nav.hussain@gmail.com).

References

1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the VSLO program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/attending-medical-school/article/coronavirus-covid-19-and-vslo-program/. Accessed April 17, 2020.

2. Mansouri B, Walker GD, Mitchell J, et al. The cost of applying to dermatology residency: 2014 data estimates. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:754-756.

3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2018. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NRMP-2018-Program-Director-Survey-for-WWW.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed April 17, 2020.

4. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? [published online March 6, 2020]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2950.

5. Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, et al. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:627-633.

To the Editor:

Ongoing concern about the high costs of dermatology residency interviews has led to several cost-saving proposals, as presented by Hussain¹ in the Cutis article, “Reducing the Cost of Dermatology Residency Applications: An Applicant’s Perspective.” Additional strategies to reduce applicant costs include eliminating travel costs through video or telephone interviews, interviewing students who are visiting during their away rotation, and developing and implementing a mechanism to exempt students from participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).² A potential mechanism for the latter suggestion could be a binding early decision program for dermatology residency. Binding early decision has been successfully employed by medical schools for many years.³ Under this model for dermatology residency, applicants may apply to 1 dermatology residency program by the early deadline and the program would have the option of accepting as many of the early-decision applicants as the number of residency positions in their program permits, allowing nonadmitted and nonparticipating applicants time to apply through the usual ERAS/NRMP cycle. There are several potential advantages to this model that would decrease the number of applicants applying to all the available dermatology residency programs each cycle.

First, because applicants would be limited to 1 application to participate in the early decision program, they must realistically consider the strength of their application and weigh their chances for acceptance to that program. Programs could facilitate the process by becoming more transparent about the type of applicants that have previously matched in their program.² If an early-decision applicant successfully matches, that applicant would be prohibited from applying to additional dermatology residency programs through ERAS and NRMP during that application cycle.

Second, early-decision actions by programs—probably by August 1, a time when most third-year medical students have completed their academic year—would be determined before ERAS releases applications to residency programs. This timeline would remove successful applicants in the early decision program from going to additional interviews and incurring the associated travel costs.

Third, early decision could be potentially beneficial to applicants who are tied to a specific geographic region for training and to programs with specific program needs, such as expertise in specific areas of dermatology research or areas of clinical need (eg, adding a dermatopathologist, plastic surgeon, internist, or a pediatrician to the residency program who now wants dermatology training) or other program needs.

Fourth, application costs could potentially be lower for early-decision applicants than through the present application process if participating institutions waived application fees. Applicants would still be responsible for submitting requested academic transcripts, letters of recommendation, and travel expenses if an on-site interview is requested by the program.

Finally, highly desirable applicants who are offered a position through early decision would result in more opportunities for other applicants to interview for the remaining available residency positions through ERAS/NRMP.

Downsides to early decision for dermatology residency include the inability of applicants to compare programs to one another through their personal experiences, such as prior rotations or interviews, and for programs to compare applicants though the interview process and away rotations. In addition, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores and Alpha Omega Alpha honor medical society status and other academic honors may not be available to programs to consider at the time of early decision. Cooperation would be needed with ERAS and NRMP to create an early decision program for dermatology residency.

One other potential consequence of the early match could involve instances of strained relationships between research fellows and their sponsoring institution or dermatology program. Research fellows often match at their research institution, and failing to early match could potentially sour the relationship between the applicant and the program, thus leading to a less productive year. However, many programs participating in an early match will probably have additional residency positions remaining in the traditional match that would be still available to the fellows.

The concept of an early-binding residency match process has the potential to save both time and money for programs and applicants. Although an early-match process would have many positive effects, there also would be inherent downsides that accompany such a system. Nonetheless, an early-match process in dermatology has the prospect of efficiently pairing applicants and programs that feel strongly about each other while simplifying the match process and reducing costs for all parties involved.

References

1. Hussain AN. Reducing the cost of dermatology residency applications: an applicant’s perspective. Cutis. 2019;104:352-353.

2. Weisert E, Phan M. Thoughts on reducing the cost for dermatology residency applications. DIG@UTMB blog. http://digutmb.blogspot.com/2019/12/thoughts-on-reducing-cost-for.html. Published December 23, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2020.

3. Early decision program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-medical-school/article/early-decision-program/. Accessed April 8, 2020.

Author’s Response

The early decision option for dermatology residency applications would be a welcomed addition to the process but may be complicated by 2 recent events: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the change of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting to a pass/fail system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused remarkable economic distress and likely affects medical students more acutely given their high levels of debt. As Ryan and Wagner observed, one advantage of the early-decision option would be financial relief for certain students. If applicants successfully match during the early-decision phase, they will not need to apply to any additional dermatology programs and also can target their preliminary-year applications to the geographic region where they have already matched.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may further reduce early applicants’ ability to visit programs in person. Various medical schools have curtailed away rotations, and programs may opt for virtual interviews in accordance with social distancing guidelines.¹ Thus, early applicants will have even fewer opportunities to compare programs before they must make a binding decision about their residency placement. Although away rotations and interview travel are some of the largest drivers of application cost,² reducing costs in this way might shortchange both students and programs.

Arguably, the change in USMLE Step 1 score reporting beginning in 2022 may impact residency selection for a longer period of time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Program directors cited USMLE Step 1 scores as one of the main factors determining which applicants may be invited to interview.³ The lack of numerical USMLE Step 1 scores may encourage programs to place more weight on other metrics such as USMLE Step 2 CK scores or Alpha Omega Alpha membership.⁴ However, as Ryan and Wagner point out, such metrics may not be available in time for early-decision applicants.

As such, future program directors will have precious little information to screen early-decision applicants and may need to conduct holistic application review. This would require increased time and manpower compared to screening based on traditional metrics but may lead to a better “fit” for an applicant with a residency.

In general, implementation of any early decision program would benefit dermatology applicants as a group by removing elite candidates from the applicant pool. According to National Resident Matching Program data, just 3% of dermatology applicants account for more than 12% of overall interviews.⁵ In other words, a small group of the strongest applicants receives a lion’s share of interviews, crowding out many other candidates. Removing these top-tier applicants likely would provide remaining applicants with a higher return on investment per application, and students may choose to save money by applying to fewer programs.

Adopting early-decision options within the dermatology match may be complicated given the COVID-19 pandemic and USMLE score changes but may spur positive changes in the process while also reducing the financial burden on applicants.

Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP

From Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Aamir N. Hussain, MD, MAPP (aamir.nav.hussain@gmail.com).

References

1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the VSLO program. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://students-residents.aamc.org/attending-medical-school/article/coronavirus-covid-19-and-vslo-program/. Accessed April 17, 2020.

2. Mansouri B, Walker GD, Mitchell J, et al. The cost of applying to dermatology residency: 2014 data estimates. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:754-756.

3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2018. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NRMP-2018-Program-Director-Survey-for-WWW.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed April 17, 2020.

4. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? [published online March 6, 2020]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2950.

5. Lee AH, Young P, Liao R, et al. I dream of Gini: quantifying inequality in otolaryngology residency interviews. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:627-633.

Practice Gap

Common donor sites for split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) include the abdomen, buttocks, inner upper arms and forearms, and thighs. Challenges associated with donor site wounds in these areas include slow healing times and poor scar cosmesis. Although the scalp is not commonly considered when selecting a STSG donor site, harvesting from this area yields optimal results to improve these shortcomings.

Tools

A Weck knife facilitates STSG harvesting in an operationally timely, convenient fashion from larger donor sites up to 5.5 cm in width, such as the scalp, using adjustable thickness control guards.

The Technique

The donor site is lubricated with a sterile mineral oil. An assistant provides tension, leading the trajectory of the Weck knife with a guard. Small, gentle, back-and-forth strokes are made with the Weck knife to harvest the graft, which is then meshed with a No. 15 blade by placing the belly of the blade on the tissue and rolling it to-and-fro. The recipient site cartilage is fenestrated with a 2-mm punch biopsy.

A 48-year-old man underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for treatment of a primary basal cell carcinoma of the left helix, resulting in a 2.5×1.3-cm defect after 2 stages. A Weck knife with a 0.012-in guard was used to harvest an STSG from the postauricular scalp (Figure, A), and the graft was inset to the recipient wound bed. Hemostasis at the scalp donor site was achieved through application of pressure and sterile gauze that was saturated with local 1% lidocaine anesthesia containing 1:400,000 epinephrine. Both recipient and donor sites were dressed with tie-over bolsters that were sutured into place. At 2-week follow-up, the donor site was fully reepithelialized and hair regrowth obscured the defect (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

Our case demonstrates the advantages of the scalp as an STSG donor site with prompt healing time and excellent cosmesis. Because grafts are harvested at a depth superficial to the hair follicle, the hair regrows to conceal the donor site scar. Additionally, the robust blood supply of the scalp and hair follicle density optimize healing time. The location of the donor site at the postauricular scalp facilitates accessibility for wound care by the patient. Electrocautery or chemical styptics used for hemostasis may traumatize the hair follicles and risk causing alopecia; therefore, as demonstrated in our case, the preferred method to achieve hemostasis is the use of pressure or application of sterile gauze that has been saturated with local 1% lidocaine anesthesia containing 1:400,000 epinephrine, followed by a pressure dressing provided by a sutured bolster.

Our case also demonstrates the utility of the Weck knife, which was introduced in 1968 as a modification of existing instruments to improve the ease of harvesting STSGs by appending a fixed handle and interchangeable depth gauges to a straight razor.^1,2 The Weck knife can obtain grafts up to 5.5 cm in width (length may be as long as anatomically available), often circumventing the need to overlap grafts of smaller widths for repair of larger defects. Furthermore, grafts are harvested at a depth superficial to the hair follicle, averting donor site alopecia. These characteristics make the technique an ideal option for harvesting grafts from the scalp and other large donor sites.

Limitations of the Weck knife technique include the inability to harvest grafts from small donor sites in difficult-to-access anatomic regions or from areas with notable 3-dimensional structure. For harvesting such grafts, we prefer the DermaBlade (AccuTec Blades). Furthermore, assistance for providing tension along the trajectory of the Weck blade with a guard is optimal when performing the procedure. For practices not already utilizing a Weck knife, the technique necessitates additional training and cost. Nonetheless, for STSGs in which large donor site surface area, adjustable thickness, and convenient and timely operational technique are desired, the Weck knife should be considered as part of the dermatologic surgeon’s armamentarium.

Practice Gap

Common donor sites for split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) include the abdomen, buttocks, inner upper arms and forearms, and thighs. Challenges associated with donor site wounds in these areas include slow healing times and poor scar cosmesis. Although the scalp is not commonly considered when selecting a STSG donor site, harvesting from this area yields optimal results to improve these shortcomings.

Tools

A Weck knife facilitates STSG harvesting in an operationally timely, convenient fashion from larger donor sites up to 5.5 cm in width, such as the scalp, using adjustable thickness control guards.

The Technique

The donor site is lubricated with a sterile mineral oil. An assistant provides tension, leading the trajectory of the Weck knife with a guard. Small, gentle, back-and-forth strokes are made with the Weck knife to harvest the graft, which is then meshed with a No. 15 blade by placing the belly of the blade on the tissue and rolling it to-and-fro. The recipient site cartilage is fenestrated with a 2-mm punch biopsy.

A 48-year-old man underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for treatment of a primary basal cell carcinoma of the left helix, resulting in a 2.5×1.3-cm defect after 2 stages. A Weck knife with a 0.012-in guard was used to harvest an STSG from the postauricular scalp (Figure, A), and the graft was inset to the recipient wound bed. Hemostasis at the scalp donor site was achieved through application of pressure and sterile gauze that was saturated with local 1% lidocaine anesthesia containing 1:400,000 epinephrine. Both recipient and donor sites were dressed with tie-over bolsters that were sutured into place. At 2-week follow-up, the donor site was fully reepithelialized and hair regrowth obscured the defect (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

Our case demonstrates the advantages of the scalp as an STSG donor site with prompt healing time and excellent cosmesis. Because grafts are harvested at a depth superficial to the hair follicle, the hair regrows to conceal the donor site scar. Additionally, the robust blood supply of the scalp and hair follicle density optimize healing time. The location of the donor site at the postauricular scalp facilitates accessibility for wound care by the patient. Electrocautery or chemical styptics used for hemostasis may traumatize the hair follicles and risk causing alopecia; therefore, as demonstrated in our case, the preferred method to achieve hemostasis is the use of pressure or application of sterile gauze that has been saturated with local 1% lidocaine anesthesia containing 1:400,000 epinephrine, followed by a pressure dressing provided by a sutured bolster.

Our case also demonstrates the utility of the Weck knife, which was introduced in 1968 as a modification of existing instruments to improve the ease of harvesting STSGs by appending a fixed handle and interchangeable depth gauges to a straight razor.^1,2 The Weck knife can obtain grafts up to 5.5 cm in width (length may be as long as anatomically available), often circumventing the need to overlap grafts of smaller widths for repair of larger defects. Furthermore, grafts are harvested at a depth superficial to the hair follicle, averting donor site alopecia. These characteristics make the technique an ideal option for harvesting grafts from the scalp and other large donor sites.

Limitations of the Weck knife technique include the inability to harvest grafts from small donor sites in difficult-to-access anatomic regions or from areas with notable 3-dimensional structure. For harvesting such grafts, we prefer the DermaBlade (AccuTec Blades). Furthermore, assistance for providing tension along the trajectory of the Weck blade with a guard is optimal when performing the procedure. For practices not already utilizing a Weck knife, the technique necessitates additional training and cost. Nonetheless, for STSGs in which large donor site surface area, adjustable thickness, and convenient and timely operational technique are desired, the Weck knife should be considered as part of the dermatologic surgeon’s armamentarium.

Practice Gap

Common donor sites for split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) include the abdomen, buttocks, inner upper arms and forearms, and thighs. Challenges associated with donor site wounds in these areas include slow healing times and poor scar cosmesis. Although the scalp is not commonly considered when selecting a STSG donor site, harvesting from this area yields optimal results to improve these shortcomings.

Tools

A Weck knife facilitates STSG harvesting in an operationally timely, convenient fashion from larger donor sites up to 5.5 cm in width, such as the scalp, using adjustable thickness control guards.

The Technique

The donor site is lubricated with a sterile mineral oil. An assistant provides tension, leading the trajectory of the Weck knife with a guard. Small, gentle, back-and-forth strokes are made with the Weck knife to harvest the graft, which is then meshed with a No. 15 blade by placing the belly of the blade on the tissue and rolling it to-and-fro. The recipient site cartilage is fenestrated with a 2-mm punch biopsy.

A 48-year-old man underwent Mohs micrographic surgery for treatment of a primary basal cell carcinoma of the left helix, resulting in a 2.5×1.3-cm defect after 2 stages. A Weck knife with a 0.012-in guard was used to harvest an STSG from the postauricular scalp (Figure, A), and the graft was inset to the recipient wound bed. Hemostasis at the scalp donor site was achieved through application of pressure and sterile gauze that was saturated with local 1% lidocaine anesthesia containing 1:400,000 epinephrine. Both recipient and donor sites were dressed with tie-over bolsters that were sutured into place. At 2-week follow-up, the donor site was fully reepithelialized and hair regrowth obscured the defect (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

Our case demonstrates the advantages of the scalp as an STSG donor site with prompt healing time and excellent cosmesis. Because grafts are harvested at a depth superficial to the hair follicle, the hair regrows to conceal the donor site scar. Additionally, the robust blood supply of the scalp and hair follicle density optimize healing time. The location of the donor site at the postauricular scalp facilitates accessibility for wound care by the patient. Electrocautery or chemical styptics used for hemostasis may traumatize the hair follicles and risk causing alopecia; therefore, as demonstrated in our case, the preferred method to achieve hemostasis is the use of pressure or application of sterile gauze that has been saturated with local 1% lidocaine anesthesia containing 1:400,000 epinephrine, followed by a pressure dressing provided by a sutured bolster.

Our case also demonstrates the utility of the Weck knife, which was introduced in 1968 as a modification of existing instruments to improve the ease of harvesting STSGs by appending a fixed handle and interchangeable depth gauges to a straight razor.^1,2 The Weck knife can obtain grafts up to 5.5 cm in width (length may be as long as anatomically available), often circumventing the need to overlap grafts of smaller widths for repair of larger defects. Furthermore, grafts are harvested at a depth superficial to the hair follicle, averting donor site alopecia. These characteristics make the technique an ideal option for harvesting grafts from the scalp and other large donor sites.

Limitations of the Weck knife technique include the inability to harvest grafts from small donor sites in difficult-to-access anatomic regions or from areas with notable 3-dimensional structure. For harvesting such grafts, we prefer the DermaBlade (AccuTec Blades). Furthermore, assistance for providing tension along the trajectory of the Weck blade with a guard is optimal when performing the procedure. For practices not already utilizing a Weck knife, the technique necessitates additional training and cost. Nonetheless, for STSGs in which large donor site surface area, adjustable thickness, and convenient and timely operational technique are desired, the Weck knife should be considered as part of the dermatologic surgeon’s armamentarium.

Deepithelialized flaps and grafts have been widely used by reconstructive surgeons in a diverse range of medical specialties since the early 20th century. ¹ These reconstructive modalities have more recently been applied to dermatologic surgery. Deepithelialized flaps and grafts involve removal of the epidermis from the dermis for a variety of surgical purposes. Although these techniques play an important role in dermatologic surgery, reports of application of deepithelialized flaps and grafts in the dermatology literature is limited. This article includes a presentation of the applications of deepithelialized flaps and grafts in procedural dermatology.

DEEPITHELIALIZATION TECHNIQUES

There are a variety of techniques for deepithelialization, although sharp deepithelialization generally is preferred by dermatologic surgeons. The scalpel technique can be accomplished by making an intradermal incision with a No. 15 blade. Traction is an essential component of the deepthelialization process and facilitates sharp removal of the epidermis and superficial dermis in an even plane. The peeling orange technique, which has been described in reduction mammoplasty, is a variant of the scalpel technique used for creating a large area of deepithelialized tissue.² A No. 10 blade is used to make multiple partial-thickness intradermal incisions 1 to 2 cm apart along the pedicle. Traction facilitates rapid deepithelialization of the skin strips on the pedicle. A sharp curette is an alternative option for sharply removing the epithelium from a small area. Electric dermatome, laser, and electrocautery techniques for deepithelialization also can be considered.^2,3

APPLICATION OF DEEPITHELIALIZED FLAPS

Deepithelialized flaps may be considered for single-stage reconstruction with tunneled interpolation flaps, reconstruction requiring contour preservation, and reconstruction involving free margins.^4-17

Reconstruction With Single-Stage Tunneled Interpolated Flaps

Alar Base
A partially deepithelialized tunneled interpolated flap is an elegant reconstructive option for defects involving the upper cutaneous lip and alar base. The flap is elevated from the ipsilateral nasolabial fold, deepithelialized proximally, and tunneled under the intact portion of the cutaneous upper lip and ala. The flap is then deepithelialized superiorly to bolster the alar base and inset at the recipient site.⁴

Nasal Ala
The tunneled interpolated flap is useful for reconstruction of defects of the nasal ala. A flap with a superior deepithelialized pedicle and an anticipated inferior Burow triangle is designed along the axis of the nasolabial fold. The inferior Burow triangle and central flap are elevated at the level of the superficial subcutaneous fat and the pedicle is dissected. The donor and recipient sites are widely undermined, and the flap and pedicle pass through the tunnel. The donor site is closed primarily, the inferior Burow triangle is trimmed, and the flap is sutured into the defect.⁵ This flap allows for preservation of free margins and favorable placement of incision lines. Furthermore, pincushioning of the flap helps to recreate the rounded shape of the lateral ala.⁶

Nasal Tip
Nasal tip defects can be repaired with a retroangular flap, centered on the angular artery. The flap is elevated along the axis of the nasolabial fold, deepithelialized at its proximal base, and transferred through a subcutaneous tunnel to the nasal tip. The angular artery is ligated at the inferior aspect of the flap.⁷

Nasal Sidewall
A deepithelialized tunneled interpolated forehead flap, similar to the classic paramedian forehead flap, can be used to reconstruct nasal sidewall defects. A flap is elevated on the contralateral forehead and the proximal portion is deepithelialized. A tunnel is then bluntly dissected just above the periosteum, and the flap is introduced into the defect through the tunnel and inset. This flap has the advantages of being a single-stage procedure, restoring volume to the defect area, and maintaining excellent vascular supply.⁸

Eyelid
A tunneled interpolated forehead flap also can be used to repair medial canthal defects and for anterior lamellar repair of lower eyelid defects. In a study of 9 patients receiving a tunneled interpolated forehead flap in these anatomic locations, all flaps demonstrated viability, protection of the globe, and preservation of the concave architecture of the medial canthus.⁹

Earlobe
Earlobe defects may be repaired with a pull-through interpolated preauricular flap. A flap is elevated superiorly in the preauricular region and the proximal aspect of the flap is deepithelialized. The flap is pulled through a tunnel and inset at the anterior earlobe defect. The donor site is closed primarily.^10,11

Concha
Reconstruction of anterior conchal defects with exposed cartilage can be accomplished with a pull-through interpolated postauricular flap based on the auriculomastoid fossa. The postauricular flap is elevated, the base is deepithelialized, an incision is made in the medial aspect of the defect, and the flap is moved through a tunnel between the posterior and anterior surfaces of the ear. The flap is secured to the anterior surface of the concha.¹²

Reconstruction Requiring Contour Preservation

Central Face
The hinge flap is optimal for reconstruction of deep central facial defects (Figure 1). The hinge flap is planned at a site contiguous with a margin of the defect and can include the dermis, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, or a combination of these. The desired tissue is folded over on the pedicle to fill the defect. Cutaneous coverage is accomplished through a primary closure, separate flap, or skin graft. In addition to restoring contour and therefore the cosmetic subunit, the hinge flap is performed in a single stage, resists wound contracture, and provides a well-vascularized wound bed resulting in a low incidence of graft failure.^13,14 Muscular hinge flaps have been described for reconstruction of forehead defects with exposed bone based on the frontalis muscle.¹⁵

Lower Lip
A variant of a V-Y advancement flap has been described for reconstruction of defects greater than one-third the length of the lower lip. The top of the “V” is deepithelialized and the flap is advanced such that the top of the “V” abuts the inferior border of the defect. The “V” flap is inset at its advanced position, converting the “V”-shaped wound into a “Y.” An overlying buccal mucosal graft provides reconstruction of the lower red lip and labial mucosa.¹⁶

Helix of the Ear
Large defects of the scapha and helix of the ear can be reconstructed with the use of a staged interpolated postauricular flap. The postauricular flap is elevated into a subcutaneous plane. A full-thickness incision is made medial to the helical rim, and the flap is tunneled through and sutured into place. The pedicle is later divided, and the distal aspect of the flap is deepithelialized and inset into the helical rim for volume restoration.¹⁷

Reconstruction Involving Free Margins

Nasal Ala
For large defects involving the upper cutaneous lip with adjacent alar base involvement, a partially deepithelialized V-Y flap is a useful reconstructive option (Figure 2).

Infraorbital Region
A deepithelialized variant of a V-Y advancement flap can be used for closure of infraorbital defects. The limbs of the V-Y flap are deepithelialized and anchored to the medial and lateral canthal tendons or periosteum. Ectropion prevention is the primary advantage of this flap.¹⁸

APPLICATION OF DEEPITHELIALIZED GRAFTS

Deepithelialized grafts may be considered for volume replacement, reconstruction requiring contour preservation, and restoration of mechanical integrity in areas of high mechanical tension.^3,19-21

Reconstruction Requiring Contour Preservation

Deepithelialized grafts are used to improve depressed nasal scars and restore volume in deep nasal wounds. One method involves deepithelialization of 2 postauricular punch biopsies. An 18-gauge needle is used to make a small hole in the depressed nasal scar, the dermal grafts are inserted, and the defect is closed primarily.¹⁹ Dermal grafts may be harvested from excess full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) or dog-ear tissue. When used under flaps, the dermal graft is trimmed to the size of the defect. When used under FTSGs, thin dermal graft strips are placed in a gridlike pattern to allow for revascularization. A study of 15 patients with contour deformities reconstructed with dermal graft insertions demonstrated that 14 (94%) patients had no significant complications and improvement of scar depression was achieved.²⁰

Reconstruction in Areas of High Mechanical Tension

Plantar Foot
A combined dermal and full-thickness sandwich graft has been described for reconstruction of plantar foot defects.³ The graft is created by obtaining a FTSG twice the size of the wound defect and deepithelializing half of the graft. The graft is then defatted and the deepithelialized portion is folded beneath the other half, allowing the papillary dermis to make contact with the wound surface.

Scalp
Dermal graft reconstruction for scalp defects may be accomplished with a split-thickness skin flap. The flap is harvested using an electronic dermatome that ensures the proximal aspect is still attached to adjacent skin. The dermis is removed from the area underneath the back-folded split-thickness skin flap. The dermal graft is meshed and sutured into the recipient site. The split-thickness skin flap is replaced over the donor site. Meshed reversed dermal grafts have excellent survival rates, even with direct placement on bone without periosteum. Querings et al²¹ reported graft survival with no complications in 19 of 21 (90.4%) patients undergoing scalp or plantar sole reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

With the widespread adoption of the fresh-tissue technique for Mohs micrographic surgery and the establishment of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery in 1970, the depth and scope of techniques used by dermatologic surgeons has dramatically expanded. Although the use of dermal flaps and grafts is not as widespread in dermatology as other reconstructive techniques, their unique advantages should be considered. Deepithelialized flaps and grafts should be considered when the following reconstructive goals are desired: (1) conversion of a 2-stage interpolation flap to a single-stage tunneled flap, (2) contour and cosmetic subunit preservation of deep defects through volume augmentation, (3) reconstruction in areas of high mechanical tension, and (4) free margin preservation. The multiple applications of deepithelialized flaps and grafts as described in this review demonstrate their continued applicability in dermatologic surgery.

Deepithelialized flaps and grafts have been widely used by reconstructive surgeons in a diverse range of medical specialties since the early 20th century. ¹ These reconstructive modalities have more recently been applied to dermatologic surgery. Deepithelialized flaps and grafts involve removal of the epidermis from the dermis for a variety of surgical purposes. Although these techniques play an important role in dermatologic surgery, reports of application of deepithelialized flaps and grafts in the dermatology literature is limited. This article includes a presentation of the applications of deepithelialized flaps and grafts in procedural dermatology.

DEEPITHELIALIZATION TECHNIQUES

There are a variety of techniques for deepithelialization, although sharp deepithelialization generally is preferred by dermatologic surgeons. The scalpel technique can be accomplished by making an intradermal incision with a No. 15 blade. Traction is an essential component of the deepthelialization process and facilitates sharp removal of the epidermis and superficial dermis in an even plane. The peeling orange technique, which has been described in reduction mammoplasty, is a variant of the scalpel technique used for creating a large area of deepithelialized tissue.² A No. 10 blade is used to make multiple partial-thickness intradermal incisions 1 to 2 cm apart along the pedicle. Traction facilitates rapid deepithelialization of the skin strips on the pedicle. A sharp curette is an alternative option for sharply removing the epithelium from a small area. Electric dermatome, laser, and electrocautery techniques for deepithelialization also can be considered.^2,3

APPLICATION OF DEEPITHELIALIZED FLAPS

Deepithelialized flaps may be considered for single-stage reconstruction with tunneled interpolation flaps, reconstruction requiring contour preservation, and reconstruction involving free margins.^4-17

Reconstruction With Single-Stage Tunneled Interpolated Flaps

Alar Base
A partially deepithelialized tunneled interpolated flap is an elegant reconstructive option for defects involving the upper cutaneous lip and alar base. The flap is elevated from the ipsilateral nasolabial fold, deepithelialized proximally, and tunneled under the intact portion of the cutaneous upper lip and ala. The flap is then deepithelialized superiorly to bolster the alar base and inset at the recipient site.⁴

Nasal Ala
The tunneled interpolated flap is useful for reconstruction of defects of the nasal ala. A flap with a superior deepithelialized pedicle and an anticipated inferior Burow triangle is designed along the axis of the nasolabial fold. The inferior Burow triangle and central flap are elevated at the level of the superficial subcutaneous fat and the pedicle is dissected. The donor and recipient sites are widely undermined, and the flap and pedicle pass through the tunnel. The donor site is closed primarily, the inferior Burow triangle is trimmed, and the flap is sutured into the defect.⁵ This flap allows for preservation of free margins and favorable placement of incision lines. Furthermore, pincushioning of the flap helps to recreate the rounded shape of the lateral ala.⁶

Nasal Tip
Nasal tip defects can be repaired with a retroangular flap, centered on the angular artery. The flap is elevated along the axis of the nasolabial fold, deepithelialized at its proximal base, and transferred through a subcutaneous tunnel to the nasal tip. The angular artery is ligated at the inferior aspect of the flap.⁷

Nasal Sidewall
A deepithelialized tunneled interpolated forehead flap, similar to the classic paramedian forehead flap, can be used to reconstruct nasal sidewall defects. A flap is elevated on the contralateral forehead and the proximal portion is deepithelialized. A tunnel is then bluntly dissected just above the periosteum, and the flap is introduced into the defect through the tunnel and inset. This flap has the advantages of being a single-stage procedure, restoring volume to the defect area, and maintaining excellent vascular supply.⁸

Eyelid
A tunneled interpolated forehead flap also can be used to repair medial canthal defects and for anterior lamellar repair of lower eyelid defects. In a study of 9 patients receiving a tunneled interpolated forehead flap in these anatomic locations, all flaps demonstrated viability, protection of the globe, and preservation of the concave architecture of the medial canthus.⁹

Earlobe
Earlobe defects may be repaired with a pull-through interpolated preauricular flap. A flap is elevated superiorly in the preauricular region and the proximal aspect of the flap is deepithelialized. The flap is pulled through a tunnel and inset at the anterior earlobe defect. The donor site is closed primarily.^10,11

Concha
Reconstruction of anterior conchal defects with exposed cartilage can be accomplished with a pull-through interpolated postauricular flap based on the auriculomastoid fossa. The postauricular flap is elevated, the base is deepithelialized, an incision is made in the medial aspect of the defect, and the flap is moved through a tunnel between the posterior and anterior surfaces of the ear. The flap is secured to the anterior surface of the concha.¹²

Reconstruction Requiring Contour Preservation

Central Face
The hinge flap is optimal for reconstruction of deep central facial defects (Figure 1). The hinge flap is planned at a site contiguous with a margin of the defect and can include the dermis, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, or a combination of these. The desired tissue is folded over on the pedicle to fill the defect. Cutaneous coverage is accomplished through a primary closure, separate flap, or skin graft. In addition to restoring contour and therefore the cosmetic subunit, the hinge flap is performed in a single stage, resists wound contracture, and provides a well-vascularized wound bed resulting in a low incidence of graft failure.^13,14 Muscular hinge flaps have been described for reconstruction of forehead defects with exposed bone based on the frontalis muscle.¹⁵

Lower Lip
A variant of a V-Y advancement flap has been described for reconstruction of defects greater than one-third the length of the lower lip. The top of the “V” is deepithelialized and the flap is advanced such that the top of the “V” abuts the inferior border of the defect. The “V” flap is inset at its advanced position, converting the “V”-shaped wound into a “Y.” An overlying buccal mucosal graft provides reconstruction of the lower red lip and labial mucosa.¹⁶

Helix of the Ear
Large defects of the scapha and helix of the ear can be reconstructed with the use of a staged interpolated postauricular flap. The postauricular flap is elevated into a subcutaneous plane. A full-thickness incision is made medial to the helical rim, and the flap is tunneled through and sutured into place. The pedicle is later divided, and the distal aspect of the flap is deepithelialized and inset into the helical rim for volume restoration.¹⁷

Reconstruction Involving Free Margins

Nasal Ala
For large defects involving the upper cutaneous lip with adjacent alar base involvement, a partially deepithelialized V-Y flap is a useful reconstructive option (Figure 2).

Infraorbital Region
A deepithelialized variant of a V-Y advancement flap can be used for closure of infraorbital defects. The limbs of the V-Y flap are deepithelialized and anchored to the medial and lateral canthal tendons or periosteum. Ectropion prevention is the primary advantage of this flap.¹⁸

APPLICATION OF DEEPITHELIALIZED GRAFTS

Deepithelialized grafts may be considered for volume replacement, reconstruction requiring contour preservation, and restoration of mechanical integrity in areas of high mechanical tension.^3,19-21

Reconstruction Requiring Contour Preservation

Deepithelialized grafts are used to improve depressed nasal scars and restore volume in deep nasal wounds. One method involves deepithelialization of 2 postauricular punch biopsies. An 18-gauge needle is used to make a small hole in the depressed nasal scar, the dermal grafts are inserted, and the defect is closed primarily.¹⁹ Dermal grafts may be harvested from excess full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) or dog-ear tissue. When used under flaps, the dermal graft is trimmed to the size of the defect. When used under FTSGs, thin dermal graft strips are placed in a gridlike pattern to allow for revascularization. A study of 15 patients with contour deformities reconstructed with dermal graft insertions demonstrated that 14 (94%) patients had no significant complications and improvement of scar depression was achieved.²⁰

Reconstruction in Areas of High Mechanical Tension

Plantar Foot
A combined dermal and full-thickness sandwich graft has been described for reconstruction of plantar foot defects.³ The graft is created by obtaining a FTSG twice the size of the wound defect and deepithelializing half of the graft. The graft is then defatted and the deepithelialized portion is folded beneath the other half, allowing the papillary dermis to make contact with the wound surface.

Scalp
Dermal graft reconstruction for scalp defects may be accomplished with a split-thickness skin flap. The flap is harvested using an electronic dermatome that ensures the proximal aspect is still attached to adjacent skin. The dermis is removed from the area underneath the back-folded split-thickness skin flap. The dermal graft is meshed and sutured into the recipient site. The split-thickness skin flap is replaced over the donor site. Meshed reversed dermal grafts have excellent survival rates, even with direct placement on bone without periosteum. Querings et al²¹ reported graft survival with no complications in 19 of 21 (90.4%) patients undergoing scalp or plantar sole reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

With the widespread adoption of the fresh-tissue technique for Mohs micrographic surgery and the establishment of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery in 1970, the depth and scope of techniques used by dermatologic surgeons has dramatically expanded. Although the use of dermal flaps and grafts is not as widespread in dermatology as other reconstructive techniques, their unique advantages should be considered. Deepithelialized flaps and grafts should be considered when the following reconstructive goals are desired: (1) conversion of a 2-stage interpolation flap to a single-stage tunneled flap, (2) contour and cosmetic subunit preservation of deep defects through volume augmentation, (3) reconstruction in areas of high mechanical tension, and (4) free margin preservation. The multiple applications of deepithelialized flaps and grafts as described in this review demonstrate their continued applicability in dermatologic surgery.

Deepithelialized flaps and grafts have been widely used by reconstructive surgeons in a diverse range of medical specialties since the early 20th century. ¹ These reconstructive modalities have more recently been applied to dermatologic surgery. Deepithelialized flaps and grafts involve removal of the epidermis from the dermis for a variety of surgical purposes. Although these techniques play an important role in dermatologic surgery, reports of application of deepithelialized flaps and grafts in the dermatology literature is limited. This article includes a presentation of the applications of deepithelialized flaps and grafts in procedural dermatology.

DEEPITHELIALIZATION TECHNIQUES

There are a variety of techniques for deepithelialization, although sharp deepithelialization generally is preferred by dermatologic surgeons. The scalpel technique can be accomplished by making an intradermal incision with a No. 15 blade. Traction is an essential component of the deepthelialization process and facilitates sharp removal of the epidermis and superficial dermis in an even plane. The peeling orange technique, which has been described in reduction mammoplasty, is a variant of the scalpel technique used for creating a large area of deepithelialized tissue.² A No. 10 blade is used to make multiple partial-thickness intradermal incisions 1 to 2 cm apart along the pedicle. Traction facilitates rapid deepithelialization of the skin strips on the pedicle. A sharp curette is an alternative option for sharply removing the epithelium from a small area. Electric dermatome, laser, and electrocautery techniques for deepithelialization also can be considered.^2,3

APPLICATION OF DEEPITHELIALIZED FLAPS

Deepithelialized flaps may be considered for single-stage reconstruction with tunneled interpolation flaps, reconstruction requiring contour preservation, and reconstruction involving free margins.^4-17

Reconstruction With Single-Stage Tunneled Interpolated Flaps

Alar Base
A partially deepithelialized tunneled interpolated flap is an elegant reconstructive option for defects involving the upper cutaneous lip and alar base. The flap is elevated from the ipsilateral nasolabial fold, deepithelialized proximally, and tunneled under the intact portion of the cutaneous upper lip and ala. The flap is then deepithelialized superiorly to bolster the alar base and inset at the recipient site.⁴

Nasal Ala
The tunneled interpolated flap is useful for reconstruction of defects of the nasal ala. A flap with a superior deepithelialized pedicle and an anticipated inferior Burow triangle is designed along the axis of the nasolabial fold. The inferior Burow triangle and central flap are elevated at the level of the superficial subcutaneous fat and the pedicle is dissected. The donor and recipient sites are widely undermined, and the flap and pedicle pass through the tunnel. The donor site is closed primarily, the inferior Burow triangle is trimmed, and the flap is sutured into the defect.⁵ This flap allows for preservation of free margins and favorable placement of incision lines. Furthermore, pincushioning of the flap helps to recreate the rounded shape of the lateral ala.⁶

Nasal Tip
Nasal tip defects can be repaired with a retroangular flap, centered on the angular artery. The flap is elevated along the axis of the nasolabial fold, deepithelialized at its proximal base, and transferred through a subcutaneous tunnel to the nasal tip. The angular artery is ligated at the inferior aspect of the flap.⁷

Nasal Sidewall
A deepithelialized tunneled interpolated forehead flap, similar to the classic paramedian forehead flap, can be used to reconstruct nasal sidewall defects. A flap is elevated on the contralateral forehead and the proximal portion is deepithelialized. A tunnel is then bluntly dissected just above the periosteum, and the flap is introduced into the defect through the tunnel and inset. This flap has the advantages of being a single-stage procedure, restoring volume to the defect area, and maintaining excellent vascular supply.⁸

Eyelid
A tunneled interpolated forehead flap also can be used to repair medial canthal defects and for anterior lamellar repair of lower eyelid defects. In a study of 9 patients receiving a tunneled interpolated forehead flap in these anatomic locations, all flaps demonstrated viability, protection of the globe, and preservation of the concave architecture of the medial canthus.⁹

Earlobe
Earlobe defects may be repaired with a pull-through interpolated preauricular flap. A flap is elevated superiorly in the preauricular region and the proximal aspect of the flap is deepithelialized. The flap is pulled through a tunnel and inset at the anterior earlobe defect. The donor site is closed primarily.^10,11

Concha
Reconstruction of anterior conchal defects with exposed cartilage can be accomplished with a pull-through interpolated postauricular flap based on the auriculomastoid fossa. The postauricular flap is elevated, the base is deepithelialized, an incision is made in the medial aspect of the defect, and the flap is moved through a tunnel between the posterior and anterior surfaces of the ear. The flap is secured to the anterior surface of the concha.¹²

Reconstruction Requiring Contour Preservation

Central Face
The hinge flap is optimal for reconstruction of deep central facial defects (Figure 1). The hinge flap is planned at a site contiguous with a margin of the defect and can include the dermis, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, or a combination of these. The desired tissue is folded over on the pedicle to fill the defect. Cutaneous coverage is accomplished through a primary closure, separate flap, or skin graft. In addition to restoring contour and therefore the cosmetic subunit, the hinge flap is performed in a single stage, resists wound contracture, and provides a well-vascularized wound bed resulting in a low incidence of graft failure.^13,14 Muscular hinge flaps have been described for reconstruction of forehead defects with exposed bone based on the frontalis muscle.¹⁵

Lower Lip
A variant of a V-Y advancement flap has been described for reconstruction of defects greater than one-third the length of the lower lip. The top of the “V” is deepithelialized and the flap is advanced such that the top of the “V” abuts the inferior border of the defect. The “V” flap is inset at its advanced position, converting the “V”-shaped wound into a “Y.” An overlying buccal mucosal graft provides reconstruction of the lower red lip and labial mucosa.¹⁶

Helix of the Ear
Large defects of the scapha and helix of the ear can be reconstructed with the use of a staged interpolated postauricular flap. The postauricular flap is elevated into a subcutaneous plane. A full-thickness incision is made medial to the helical rim, and the flap is tunneled through and sutured into place. The pedicle is later divided, and the distal aspect of the flap is deepithelialized and inset into the helical rim for volume restoration.¹⁷

Reconstruction Involving Free Margins

Nasal Ala
For large defects involving the upper cutaneous lip with adjacent alar base involvement, a partially deepithelialized V-Y flap is a useful reconstructive option (Figure 2).

Infraorbital Region
A deepithelialized variant of a V-Y advancement flap can be used for closure of infraorbital defects. The limbs of the V-Y flap are deepithelialized and anchored to the medial and lateral canthal tendons or periosteum. Ectropion prevention is the primary advantage of this flap.¹⁸

APPLICATION OF DEEPITHELIALIZED GRAFTS

Deepithelialized grafts may be considered for volume replacement, reconstruction requiring contour preservation, and restoration of mechanical integrity in areas of high mechanical tension.^3,19-21

Reconstruction Requiring Contour Preservation

Deepithelialized grafts are used to improve depressed nasal scars and restore volume in deep nasal wounds. One method involves deepithelialization of 2 postauricular punch biopsies. An 18-gauge needle is used to make a small hole in the depressed nasal scar, the dermal grafts are inserted, and the defect is closed primarily.¹⁹ Dermal grafts may be harvested from excess full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) or dog-ear tissue. When used under flaps, the dermal graft is trimmed to the size of the defect. When used under FTSGs, thin dermal graft strips are placed in a gridlike pattern to allow for revascularization. A study of 15 patients with contour deformities reconstructed with dermal graft insertions demonstrated that 14 (94%) patients had no significant complications and improvement of scar depression was achieved.²⁰

Reconstruction in Areas of High Mechanical Tension

Plantar Foot
A combined dermal and full-thickness sandwich graft has been described for reconstruction of plantar foot defects.³ The graft is created by obtaining a FTSG twice the size of the wound defect and deepithelializing half of the graft. The graft is then defatted and the deepithelialized portion is folded beneath the other half, allowing the papillary dermis to make contact with the wound surface.

Scalp
Dermal graft reconstruction for scalp defects may be accomplished with a split-thickness skin flap. The flap is harvested using an electronic dermatome that ensures the proximal aspect is still attached to adjacent skin. The dermis is removed from the area underneath the back-folded split-thickness skin flap. The dermal graft is meshed and sutured into the recipient site. The split-thickness skin flap is replaced over the donor site. Meshed reversed dermal grafts have excellent survival rates, even with direct placement on bone without periosteum. Querings et al²¹ reported graft survival with no complications in 19 of 21 (90.4%) patients undergoing scalp or plantar sole reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

With the widespread adoption of the fresh-tissue technique for Mohs micrographic surgery and the establishment of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery in 1970, the depth and scope of techniques used by dermatologic surgeons has dramatically expanded. Although the use of dermal flaps and grafts is not as widespread in dermatology as other reconstructive techniques, their unique advantages should be considered. Deepithelialized flaps and grafts should be considered when the following reconstructive goals are desired: (1) conversion of a 2-stage interpolation flap to a single-stage tunneled flap, (2) contour and cosmetic subunit preservation of deep defects through volume augmentation, (3) reconstruction in areas of high mechanical tension, and (4) free margin preservation. The multiple applications of deepithelialized flaps and grafts as described in this review demonstrate their continued applicability in dermatologic surgery.