Samantha Jo Albucker, BA

Practice Gap

Pain and anxiety are common in fully conscious patients undergoing dermatologic surgery with local anesthesia. Particularly during nail surgery, pain from anesthetic injection—caused by both needle insertion and fluid infiltration—occurs because the nail unit is highly vascularized and innervated.¹ Current methods to improve patient comfort during infiltration include use of a buffered anesthetic solution, warming the anesthetic, slower technique, and direct cold application.²

Perioperative anxiety correlates with increased postoperative pain, analgesic use, and delayed recovery. Furthermore, increased perioperative anxiety reduces the pain threshold and elevates estimates of pain intensity.³ Therefore, reducing procedure-related anxiety and pain may improve quality of care and ease patient discomfort.

Distraction is a common and practical nonpharmacotherapeutic technique for reducing pain and anxiety during medical procedures. The refocusing method of distraction aims to divert attention away from pain to more pleasant stimuli to reduce pain perception.³ Several methods of distraction—using stress balls, engaging in conversation, hand-holding, applying virtual reality, and playing videos—can decrease perioperative anxiety and pain.^3-6

Procedural pain and distraction techniques have been evaluated in the pediatric population more than in adults.⁴ Nail surgery–associated pain and distraction techniques for nail surgery have been inadequately studied.⁷

We offer a distraction technique utilizing a portable massager to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible when the local anesthetic is injected prior to the first incision.

The Technique

A portable shiatsu massager that uses heat and deep-tissue kneading is placed on the upper thigh for toenail cases or lower arm for fingernail cases during injection of anesthetic to divert the patient’s attention from the surgical site (Figure). Kneading from the massage helps distract the patient from pain by introducing a competing, more pleasant, vibrating sensation that overrides pain signals; the relaxation component helps to diminish patient anxiety during injection.

Practice Implications

Use of a portable massager may reduce pain through both distraction and vibration. In a randomized clinical trial of 115 patients undergoing hand or facial surgery, patients who viewed a distraction video during the procedure reported a lower pain score compared to the control group (mean [SD] visual analog scale of pain score, 3.4 [2.6] vs 4.5 [2.6][P=.01]).⁴ In another randomized clinical trial of 25 patients undergoing lip augmentation, 92% of patients (23/25) in the vibration-assisted arm endorsed less pain during procedures compared to the arm without vibration (mean [SD] pain score, 3.82 [1.73] vs 5.6 [1.76][P<.001]).⁸

Utilization of a portable massager is a safe means of improving the patient experience; the distracting and relaxing effects and intense pulsations simultaneously reduce anxiety and pain during nail surgery. Controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in diminishing both anxiety and pain during nail procedures compared to other analgesic methods.

Practice Gap

Pain and anxiety are common in fully conscious patients undergoing dermatologic surgery with local anesthesia. Particularly during nail surgery, pain from anesthetic injection—caused by both needle insertion and fluid infiltration—occurs because the nail unit is highly vascularized and innervated.¹ Current methods to improve patient comfort during infiltration include use of a buffered anesthetic solution, warming the anesthetic, slower technique, and direct cold application.²

Perioperative anxiety correlates with increased postoperative pain, analgesic use, and delayed recovery. Furthermore, increased perioperative anxiety reduces the pain threshold and elevates estimates of pain intensity.³ Therefore, reducing procedure-related anxiety and pain may improve quality of care and ease patient discomfort.

Distraction is a common and practical nonpharmacotherapeutic technique for reducing pain and anxiety during medical procedures. The refocusing method of distraction aims to divert attention away from pain to more pleasant stimuli to reduce pain perception.³ Several methods of distraction—using stress balls, engaging in conversation, hand-holding, applying virtual reality, and playing videos—can decrease perioperative anxiety and pain.^3-6

Procedural pain and distraction techniques have been evaluated in the pediatric population more than in adults.⁴ Nail surgery–associated pain and distraction techniques for nail surgery have been inadequately studied.⁷

We offer a distraction technique utilizing a portable massager to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible when the local anesthetic is injected prior to the first incision.

The Technique

A portable shiatsu massager that uses heat and deep-tissue kneading is placed on the upper thigh for toenail cases or lower arm for fingernail cases during injection of anesthetic to divert the patient’s attention from the surgical site (Figure). Kneading from the massage helps distract the patient from pain by introducing a competing, more pleasant, vibrating sensation that overrides pain signals; the relaxation component helps to diminish patient anxiety during injection.

Practice Implications

Use of a portable massager may reduce pain through both distraction and vibration. In a randomized clinical trial of 115 patients undergoing hand or facial surgery, patients who viewed a distraction video during the procedure reported a lower pain score compared to the control group (mean [SD] visual analog scale of pain score, 3.4 [2.6] vs 4.5 [2.6][P=.01]).⁴ In another randomized clinical trial of 25 patients undergoing lip augmentation, 92% of patients (23/25) in the vibration-assisted arm endorsed less pain during procedures compared to the arm without vibration (mean [SD] pain score, 3.82 [1.73] vs 5.6 [1.76][P<.001]).⁸

Utilization of a portable massager is a safe means of improving the patient experience; the distracting and relaxing effects and intense pulsations simultaneously reduce anxiety and pain during nail surgery. Controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in diminishing both anxiety and pain during nail procedures compared to other analgesic methods.

Practice Gap

Pain and anxiety are common in fully conscious patients undergoing dermatologic surgery with local anesthesia. Particularly during nail surgery, pain from anesthetic injection—caused by both needle insertion and fluid infiltration—occurs because the nail unit is highly vascularized and innervated.¹ Current methods to improve patient comfort during infiltration include use of a buffered anesthetic solution, warming the anesthetic, slower technique, and direct cold application.²

Perioperative anxiety correlates with increased postoperative pain, analgesic use, and delayed recovery. Furthermore, increased perioperative anxiety reduces the pain threshold and elevates estimates of pain intensity.³ Therefore, reducing procedure-related anxiety and pain may improve quality of care and ease patient discomfort.

Distraction is a common and practical nonpharmacotherapeutic technique for reducing pain and anxiety during medical procedures. The refocusing method of distraction aims to divert attention away from pain to more pleasant stimuli to reduce pain perception.³ Several methods of distraction—using stress balls, engaging in conversation, hand-holding, applying virtual reality, and playing videos—can decrease perioperative anxiety and pain.^3-6

Procedural pain and distraction techniques have been evaluated in the pediatric population more than in adults.⁴ Nail surgery–associated pain and distraction techniques for nail surgery have been inadequately studied.⁷

We offer a distraction technique utilizing a portable massager to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible when the local anesthetic is injected prior to the first incision.

The Technique

A portable shiatsu massager that uses heat and deep-tissue kneading is placed on the upper thigh for toenail cases or lower arm for fingernail cases during injection of anesthetic to divert the patient’s attention from the surgical site (Figure). Kneading from the massage helps distract the patient from pain by introducing a competing, more pleasant, vibrating sensation that overrides pain signals; the relaxation component helps to diminish patient anxiety during injection.

Practice Implications

Use of a portable massager may reduce pain through both distraction and vibration. In a randomized clinical trial of 115 patients undergoing hand or facial surgery, patients who viewed a distraction video during the procedure reported a lower pain score compared to the control group (mean [SD] visual analog scale of pain score, 3.4 [2.6] vs 4.5 [2.6][P=.01]).⁴ In another randomized clinical trial of 25 patients undergoing lip augmentation, 92% of patients (23/25) in the vibration-assisted arm endorsed less pain during procedures compared to the arm without vibration (mean [SD] pain score, 3.82 [1.73] vs 5.6 [1.76][P<.001]).⁸

Utilization of a portable massager is a safe means of improving the patient experience; the distracting and relaxing effects and intense pulsations simultaneously reduce anxiety and pain during nail surgery. Controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy in diminishing both anxiety and pain during nail procedures compared to other analgesic methods.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.