Recommendations for Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgeries during COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, dermatologists must be prepared to restructure their practice of procedural dermatology and cutaneous aesthetic surgeries. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented several challenges and has ushered in several changes in practice such as teledermatology, with many physicians adopting virtual consultations and treatments. Performing procedures in the times of COVID-19 pandemic presents challenges such as risk of transmission to doctors and staff due to potential aerosolization, release of virus droplets during the procedures, and risk of virus transfer through the instruments both in the peri- and postoperative period. This can have several medical, administrative, and legal implications. OBJECTIVES: This document aimed to outline best practices that can be followed in this scenario to perform cutaneous surgeries and procedures to ensure safer skin surgery. RECOMMENDATIONS: Standard precautions include social distancing of at least 1 m, hand hygiene, appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), safe injection practices, sterilization and disinfection of medical devices, environmental cleaning, and respiratory hygiene. It is generally advisable to see patients only by appointments. Each clinic should have a special area at entry for screening patients and providing sanitizers and masks. Procedures, which are of short duration, performed on nonfacial areas are considered as low risk and require donning surgical mask. Procedures involved with minimal invasiveness and bleeding, short duration procedures on the face such as injectables, chemical peels, and aerosol-generating procedures on nonfacial areas are considered moderate risk. These procedures need apron with head cover, N95 mask, face shield, double gloves, and smoke evacuator with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or ultralow particulate air (ULPA) filter. Aerosol and plume-regenerating procedures (such as ablative lasers on the face), prolonged surgeries on head (such as hair transplantation), intraoral, and intranasal procedures are considered high risk. These procedures must be carried out with full body cover with surgical gown, head cover, N95 mask, face shield, double gloves, and smoke evacuator. Physicians should be aware of local epidemiological situation and adhere to the relevant guidelines issued by the relevant governmental agencies.

Varied Presentations of Cutaneous Rhinosporidiosis: A Report of Three Cases.

Rhinosporidiosis is a chronic granulomatous disorder of infective etiology and it frequently affects the nasal cavity and nasopharynx. Involvement of skin in rhinosporidiosis is unusual and it may manifest itself in a diverse manner mimicking several common dermatological conditions. Three cases of cutaneous rhinosporidiosis with different presentations are reported here to highlight the manifold nature of the condition. Cutaneous rhinosporidiosis can mimic several common cutaneous disorders.

Is Lesional Stability in Vitiligo More Important Than Disease Stability for Performing Surgical Interventions? Results from a Multicentric Study.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring stability of the disease process is essential for undertaking surgical intervention in vitiligo. However, there is no consensus regarding the minimum duration of stability or the relative importance of disease and lesional stability in selecting patients for vitiligo grafting. AIM: This multicentric study aims to assess the relative importance of lesional and disease stability on selecting patients for vitiligo grafting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy patients were recruited into the study and divided into two groups: Group A with lesional stability of >1 year but overall disease stability of only 6-11 months and Group B with overall disease stability of >1 year. Patients underwent either tissue or cellular vitiligo grafting on the selected lesions and the repigmentation achieved was scored from 0 (no repigmentation) to 6 (100% repigmentation). Repigmentation achieved on different sites of the body was compared between the two groups. Adverse effects at both the donor and the recipient sites were also compared. RESULTS: Of the 170 patients who were enrolled, 82 patients were placed in Group A and 88 patients in Group B. Average repigmentation achieved (on scale of 0 to 6) was 3.8 and 4.04 in Group A and Group B, respectively. In Group A, ≥90% repigmentation was achieved in 36.6% (30/82) patients, while 37.5% (33/88) achieved similar results in Group B. Additionally, 47.6% (39/82) and 53.4% (47/88) of cases achieved partial repigmentation in Group A and Group B, respectively. Perigraft halo was the commonest adverse effect observed in both groups. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the repigmentation achieved or adverse effects observed. Repigmentation achieved was the best on the face and neck area, while acral areas responded the least. CONCLUSIONS: Lesional stability seems to be as relevant as the overall disease stability in selecting patients for surgical intervention in vitiligo.