Comparison of the Costs of Reusable Versus Disposable Equipment for Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Procedures Using Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

PURPOSE: Guidelines for sterilization of reusable equipment (eg, arthroscopes, surgical equipment) have recently been established. These guidelines are supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and affect costs for sterilization. The current analysis was undertaken to understand if reusable or disposable endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) equipment is a less-expensive option. METHODS: An activity-based cost analysis was undertaken to determine the costs of reusable versus disposable equipment for ECTR. Costs of disposable equipment were obtained from manufacturers. Costs of processing reusable equipment including labor, time, cost of operating room time, and sterilization supplies and equipment were obtained from the literature and from recent reports identifying these costs. Infection rates and costs of infection were also factored in. Decision analysis software was used to determine the expected costs of each option (disposable vs reusable). A sensitivity analysis was undertaken on those variables that were determined to have the greatest effect on the overall costs of the procedure and sterilization. RESULTS: Costs for each option when totaled were $917 for disposable and $1,019 for reusable equipment, resulting in cost savings of $102 with disposable equipment. Reusable equipment was the least costly option when the following costs/events occurred: cost of a disposable arthroscope, >$452; cost of disposable ECTR, >$647; costs of operating room time, <$28.63/min; set up time, <6.8 minutes for reusable equipment; and cost of disposable ECTR blade used with reusable equipment, <$160. CONCLUSIONS: When considering the cost of operating room time, preparation, and processing of reusable equipment for ECTR, the disposable equipment for this procedure is less costly. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Analysis II.

The Reliability of Determining the Presence of Surgical Site Infection Based on Retrospective Chart Review.

PURPOSE: Surgical site infection (SSI) can be a challenging complication after hand surgery. Retrospective studies often rely on chart review to determine presence of an SSI. The purpose of this study was to assess reliability of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for determining an SSI as applied to a chart review. We hypothesized that interobserver and intraobserver reliability for determining an SSI using these criteria while reviewing medical record documentation would be none to minimal (κ < 0.39) based on an interpretation of Cohen's κ statistics. METHODS: We created and used a database of 782 patients, 48 of whom received antibiotics within 3 months of a surgical procedure of the hand. Three fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons then evaluated the charts of those 48 patients, in which each reviewer determined whether an SSI was present or absent based on CDC criteria provided to the reviewers. Patients' charts were then reassessed 1 month later by the same reviewers. Kappa statistics were calculated for each round of assessment and averaged to determine intraobserver and interobserver reliability. RESULTS: Overall κ values were 0.22 (standard error, 0.13), indicating fair reliability. Average κ value between reviewers was 0.26 (standard error, 0.13. On average, intrarater reliability was 68.7%. CONCLUSIONS: We found poor interobserver and intraobserver reliability when using CDC criteria to determine whether a patient had an SSI, based on chart review. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Better criteria or documentation may be needed in patients with an infection after hand surgery. Retrospective chart reviews to assess infection may be unreliable.

A Prospective Evaluation of Complications after Use of Exposed Pins in the Hand and Wrist.

BACKGROUND: Kirschner wires are commonly used during hand surgical procedures. These pins are often left exposed (protruding from the skin) for ease of removal. Complications such as loosening, migration, or infection are not uncommon (ranging from 7 to 18 percent in current retrospective studies) and can compromise surgical outcome. This study evaluated the frequency of Kirschner wire-related complications. METHODS: All patients who had Kirschner wires placed as part of their surgical procedure in the hand or wrist by one of 12 attending hand surgeons over a 6-month period were enrolled prospectively. Complications were recorded by the attending surgeon at follow-up visits. Demographics and patient comorbidities including diabetes mellitus and smoking history were recorded. RESULTS: There were 141 patients enrolled and 230 pins used, including 65 women and 76 men. The mean age was 40.7 years. Thirteen patients were smokers, and eight had a history of diabetes. There were 35 soft-tissue procedures and 106 fractures. There were 35 complications (25 percent). There was a 12 percent rate of infection (n = 17), including two cases of osteomyelitis. There were 18 other complications, nine of which were major complications (6.4 percent). Smoking, age, and location (hand/fingers versus wrist) were significantly associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, one in four patients treated with Kirschner wires developed a minor or major complication, a rate that is substantially higher than reported in existing retrospective studies. Although Kirschner wires are often needed during hand surgery, surgeons should be aware that adverse events are frequent. Patients and surgeons should be vigilant in the perioperative period. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

An Evaluation of Digital Imaging Studies in an Outpatient Orthopedic Setting.

BACKGROUND: Distribution of radiographic images in the outpatient setting on compact discs-recordable (CD-R) is commonplace. Opening, manipulating and interpreting these can be challenging. This study evaluated the availability and ease of use of CD-R to evaluate digital images in an outpatient orthopedic setting. METHODS: 118 CD-R containing diagnostic studies were evaluated by seven board certified orthopaedic surgeons. Surgeon age and self-perceived "tech savvy" scores were tabulated using a visual analog scale (VAS). Surgeons evaluated: ability and number of computers to open, autorun, and specific reader software. Time to load was recorded in seconds, type of study, presence of "not for diagnostic use", and if the disc required additional software. Studies were graded using a VAS for ease of opening, ability to move from image to image and/or between series, to manipulate the image, and to zoom and pan. RESULTS: There were 79 radiographs, 29 MRI's, and 10 CT scans. Seven (6%) had to be manually opened and four (3%) required software installation. Thirteen (11%) contained a warning that the studies should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Six (5%) of the studies could not be opened. For the opened studies, average time from disk insertion to image was 43.7 seconds overall (range 3-350), 65.3 seconds (range 21-191) for MRI and CT, and 35.2 seconds (range 5-177) for radiographs. CONCLUSION: The present digital imaging systems include different software types and a variety of interfaces. Improving this would decrease time and effort necessary to open and evaluate these studies, and improve efficiency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Incidence of Glove Perforation During Hand Surgical Procedures.

PURPOSE: To determine the rate of glove perforation during hand surgery. METHODS: We prospectively examined the rate of glove perforations among 10 fellowship-trained hand surgeons at our institution during a 6 week period. Gloves were tested for perforation using a water-fill technique at the conclusion of each surgical procedure. Surgeons recorded the presence of any glove perforations. RESULTS: Eleven perforations were identified in 10 gloves among 600 surgical procedures during the study period. The perforation rate per case was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.78% to 2.8%). Forty percent of perforations (n = 4) occurred during fracture surgery. Other holes occurred during isolated carpal tunnel release (n = 3) or combined carpal tunnel and trigger finger release (n = 3). The perforation was noticed intraoperatively in only 2 gloves. The difference in perforation rate between single- and double-gloved procedures was not significant. There were no perforations in the inner glove of surgeons who double gloved. A total of 73% of holes (8 of 11) occurred on surgeons' index finger; 75% of these were on the dominant hand. The dominant thumb, non-dominant ring and nondominant little fingers each had a single perforation. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of glove perforation during hand surgery is low. Holes can occur even during soft tissue procedures of short duration. The dominant index finger appears to be at greatest risk for perforation. When they do occur, most often holes are not noticed by the operating surgeon. The baseline glove perforation rate is unknown. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A high level of vigilance is required to maintain sterile technique.

Safe Return to Driving After Volar Plating of Distal Radius Fractures.

PURPOSE: A major concern for patients following distal radius fracture fixation is when they can resume driving. This decision has medical, legal, and safety considerations, but there are no evidence-based guidelines to assist the surgeon. The goal of this study was to observe when patients are capable of safely resuming driving following surgical fixation of the distal radius. METHODS: Patients undergoing volar plating of a distal radius fracture were prospectively enrolled. At approximately 2 and 4 weeks after surgery, patients were administered a driving examination on a closed course and given a subjective questionnaire including visual analog scale scores. All basic functions of vehicle operation were evaluated. Successful completion indicated they would pass a driving evaluation. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled. Sixteen (69.5%) passed their first attempt (average of 18.4 days from surgery), another 4 (17.4%) passed their second attempt (31.3 days from surgery), and 3 did not complete the second examination. Patients who failed relied too much on their nonsurgical hand, were not able to control the steering wheel with 2 hands, and reported pain and insecurity when using the operative hand. Of those who passed the second attempt, the first failure was universally attributed to pain. Fifteen patients reported a return to independent driving prior to the first examination (average, 11.3 days). Of the 7 who failed, 6 reported they could control the car in an emergency, and 2 reported they would not feel safe with daily driving. Maximum pain while driving on the visual analog scale was 2.4 of 10 among those who failed compared with 1.3 among those who passed. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients could safely return to driving within 3 weeks of surgery. Pain was the primary limiting factor affecting driving ability. Safe return to driving may be warranted within 3 weeks of distal radius volar plate fixation in some patients. Persistent pain is likely the most important obstacle to a safe return to driving. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Fluoroscopic Exposure With Use of Mini-C-Arm During Routine Hand Surgery: A Prospective Comparison of Hand Versus Eye Radiation Dosage.

Radiation exposure with use of intraoperative fluoroscopy is a potential orthopedic occupational risk factor. The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective comparison of hand versus eye radiation exposure associated with mini-C-arm utilization and to test the hypothesis that routine mini-C-arm does not yield hand or eye dosages exceeding current recommended levels. Over a 12-month period, hand and eye radiation exposure was prospectively measured in a single board-certified hand surgeon using mini-C-arm fluoroscopy. Twenty-five cases were performed utilizing mini-C-arm fluoroscopy. Average monthly hand radiation dosage (45.81±14.49 mrem) was significantly higher (p = .01) than eye radiation dosage (<30 mrem). Both recorded values were below their respective critical exposure limits, as reported by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The findings suggest that hand and eye exposure associated with mini-C-arm utilization during routine surgery does not approach reported levels of critical radiation loads.

Hand Surgery and Fluoroscopic Eye Radiation Dosage: A Prospective Pilot Comparison of Large Versus Mini C-Arm Fluoroscopy Use.

Background: The purpose of this study is to (1) perform a prospective pilot comparison of the impact of large versus mini C-arm fluoroscopy on resultant eye radiation exposure and (2) test the hypothesis that the use of either modality during routine hand surgery does not exceed the current recommended limits to critical eye radiation dosage. Methods: Over a 12-month period, eye radiation exposure was prospectively measured by a board-certified hand surgeon using both large and mini C-arm fluoroscopy. For each modality, accumulated eye radiation dosage was measured monthly, while fluoroscopic radiation output was recorded, including total exposure time and dose rate. Results: A total of 58 cases were recorded using large C-arm and 25 cases using mini C-arm. Between the 2 groups, there was not a significant difference with total exposure time (P = .88) and average dose rate per case (P = .10). With the use of either modality, average monthly eye radiation exposure fell within the undetectable range (<30 mrem), significantly less than the current recommended limit of critical eye radiation (167 mrem/month). Conclusions: The impact of various fluoroscopic sources on eye radiation exposure remains relatively unexplored. In this study, the minimal detectable eye radiation dosages observed in both groups were reliably consistent. Our findings suggest that accumulated eye radiation dosage, from the use of either fluoroscopic modality, does not approach previously reported levels of critical radiation loads.

A Prospective Evaluation of Opioid Utilization After Upper-Extremity Surgical Procedures: Identifying Consumption Patterns and Determining Prescribing Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Although adequate management of postoperative pain with oral analgesics is an important aspect of surgical procedures, inadvertent overprescribing can lead to excess availability of opioids in the community for potential diversion. The purpose of our study was to prospectively evaluate opioid consumption following outpatient upper-extremity surgical procedures to determine opioid utilization patterns and to develop prescribing guidelines. METHODS: All patients undergoing outpatient upper-extremity surgical procedures over a consecutive 6-month period had the following prospective data collected: patient demographic characteristics, surgical details, anesthesia type, and opioid prescription and consumption patterns. Analysis of variance and post hoc comparisons were performed using t tests, with the p value for multiple pairwise tests adjusted by the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: A total of 1,416 patients with a mean age of 56 years (range, 18 to 93 years) were included in the study. Surgeons prescribed a mean total of 24 pills, and patients reported consuming a mean total of 8.1 pills, resulting in a utilization rate of 34%. Patients undergoing soft-tissue procedures reported requiring fewer opioids (5.1 pills for 2.2 days) compared with fracture surgical procedures (13.0 pills for 4.5 days) or joint procedures (14.5 pills for 5.0 days) (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent wrist surgical procedures required a mean number of 7.5 pills for 3.1 days and those who underwent hand surgical procedures required a mean number of 7.7 pills for 2.9 days, compared with patients who underwent forearm or elbow surgical procedures (11.1 pills) and those who underwent upper arm or shoulder surgical procedures (22.0 pills) (p < 0.01). Procedure type, anatomic location, anesthesia type, age, and type of insurance were also all significantly associated with reported opioid consumption (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, prospective evaluation of postoperative opioid consumption, we found that patients are being prescribed approximately 3 times greater opioid medications than needed following upper-extremity surgical procedures. We have provided general prescribing guidelines, and we recommend that surgeons carefully examine their patients' opioid utilization and consider customizing their opioid prescriptions on the basis of anatomic location and procedure type to prescribe the optimal amount of opioids while avoiding dissemination of excess opioids.

Wide Awake Trigger Finger Release Surgery: Prospective Comparison of Lidocaine, Marcaine, and Exparel.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics are routinely used in hand surgery for procedures such as trigger finger releases (TFRs). However, little is known as to the difference in efficacy and patient experience with various local anesthetics. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy of Lidocaine (L), Marcaine (M), and Exparel (E) to elucidate differences in pain scores and opioid consumption between these groups. METHODS: All consecutive TFR performed over a 6-month period in 2014 at our institution were divided to receive Lidocaine, Marcaine, or Marcaine with postoperative Exparel. Pain levels, daily opioid consumption, and adverse reactions were recorded and analyzed for postoperative day (POD) 0-3. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were enrolled (L:53, M:50, E:51). The Lidocaine group reported the highest pain levels for POD 0-1. Marcaine pain levels were similar to Exparel on POD 0 but higher on POD 1. Opioid consumption on POD 0-1 was significantly different with E:27%, M:58% and L:59% as was the number of pills consumed (E:0.70, M: 1.08 and L:1.62). In addition, 50% of Exparel patients required no pain medications and experienced significantly less adverse reactions (E:4%, M:10%, L:13%). By POD 2-3, there were no statistical differences between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with Marcaine attain better pain control than Lidocaine on POD 0-1but only patients who received Exparel maintained the lowest pain levels through POD 0-3 while using little-to-no opioid medications and with less adverse reactions than Lidocaine or Marcaine alone.

A prospective randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of one versus two (staged) corticosteroid injections for the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis.

BACKGROUND: Stenosing tenosynovitis or trigger finger is a common clinical condition regularly treated with steroid injections. Varied success is reported at early time points following injection. We present a prospective, randomized IRB-approved study to confirm these findings at a long-term follow-up. METHODS: Adult patients presenting with symptoms of stenosing tenosynovitis who agreed to participate were randomized into two groups. Group 1 received an initial injection of triamcinolone and local anesthetic mixture. Group 2 received the same initial injection and an additional staged injection at 6 weeks. The patients were then followed beyond 2 years. If Group 1 patients were still symptomatic at 6 weeks, another injection was given. An additional injection or surgery was defined as treatment failure. DASH scores were obtained at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients (101 trigger digits) were enrolled in the prospective trial. Fifty-six digits were randomized to the one-injection group versus 45 digits randomized to the two-injection group ("intention to treat analysis"-ITT). After accounting for crossover between the groups, 42 patients received one-injection versus fifty-nine patients receiving two injections ("actual" analysis). Overall failure was the same between the two groups. However, a higher surgery rate was noted for patients having undergone two injections versus one injection [47 % versus 27 % (p < 0.013), ITT]. Diabetes was associated with a higher surgery rate at 1 year within the group of overall failures [56 % versus 37 % (p = 0.0505), ITT]. High baseline DASH score (>40) was associated with a median time of 10 months for failure and 6 months for surgery as per a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively, ITT). CONCLUSIONS: As overall failure of steroid injection for trigger finger is not improved with staged, two-injection treatment, we recommend a single injection initial treatment for trigger finger with a second injection given in cases of recurrence or failure. Diabetes was a risk factor for needing surgery if failure occurred within 1 year. The baseline DASH score is helpful in predicting which patients have a higher chance of failing as well as needing surgery. Level of evidence Prospective, randomized trial, level I.

Radiation exposure to hand surgeons' hands: a practical comparison of large and mini C-arm fluoroscopy.

PURPOSE: To determine and compare the radiation exposure to surgeons' hands with large and mini C-arm fluoroscopy in a practical, clinically based model. METHODS: Two hand surgeons monitored radiation exposure to their hands with a ring dosimeter over a 14-month period using large and mini C-arm fluoroscopic units. One surgeon performed all cases with a large C-arm unit in a hospital setting, and the other performed all cases with mini C-arms in surgical centers. For each case, fluoroscopic time, the output displayed by the unit, radiation by time, and ring dosimeter absorption were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 160 consecutive cases were reviewed with 71 cases and 89 cases in the large and mini C-arm groups, respectively. The median output displayed by the large C-arm was 0.7 mGy/case, and the median output displayed by the mini C-arm was 10.0 mGy/case. With output as a product of time, the median calculated values were 0.02 mGy/s for the large C-arm group and 0.28 mGy/s for the mini C-arm group. Cumulative ring dosimeter absorption to the surgeons' hands was found to be 380 mrem for 71 cases in the large C-arm group versus 1,000 mrem for 89 cases in the mini C-arm group. CONCLUSIONS: In our model, the use of the mini C-arm resulted in more than a 10-fold increase in the rate of output and approximately double the dosimeter absorption to the surgeon's hand compared with the large C-arm. Although it has been shown that the mini C-arm produces less radiation scatter, in a practical model, it may not be a safer alternative with respect to the surgeon's hands. Based on these findings, we recommend that surgeons be more aware of radiation exposure risk, know their C-arm unit's specifications, and try to minimize radiation exposure. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Ethical and educational considerations in coding hand surgeries.

PURPOSE: To assess treatment coding knowledge and practices among residents, fellows, and attending hand surgeons. METHODS: Through the use of 6 hypothetical cases, we developed a coding survey to assess coding knowledge and practices. We e-mailed this survey to residents, fellows, and attending hand surgeons. In additionally, we asked 2 professional coders to code these cases. RESULTS: A total of 71 participants completed the survey out of 134 people to whom the survey was sent (response rate = 53%). We observed marked disparity in codes chosen among surgeons and among professional coders. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that coding knowledge, not just its ethical application, had a major role in coding procedures accurately. Surgical coding is an essential part of a hand surgeon's practice and is not well learned during residency or fellowship. Whereas ethical issues such as deliberate unbundling and upcoding may have a role in inaccurate coding, lack of knowledge among surgeons and coders has a major role as well. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Coding has a critical role in every hand surgery practice. Inconstancies among those polled in this study reveal that an increase in education on coding during training and improvement in the clarity and consistency of the Current Procedural Terminology coding rules themselves are needed.

Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome by members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand: a 25-year perspective.

PURPOSE: In 1987, Duncan et al.(1) reported on a survey of the members of the American Society for the Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) about their practices in treating carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). To better understand changes in the treatment of CTS over the past 25 years, we repeated the survey while incorporating present-day controversies. METHODS: With the approval of the ASSH, an Internet-based survey was e-mailed to all members of the Society. This included 33 primary questions focusing on 4 areas of study: surgeon demographic information, nonoperative treatment, surgical technique, and postoperative care. A total of 1,463 surveys were delivered and 707 surveys were completed and returned, for a response rate of 48%. Responses were compared with the responses from Duncan et al. published 25 years ago.(1) RESULTS: In contrast to the practice patterns identified 25 years ago, this survey identified several changes in current clinical practices including the following statistically significant findings: Preoperatively, surgeons have increased the use of splints and corticosteroid injections, treat nonoperatively longer, and have narrowed their surgical indications. Regarding surgical technique, surgeons now are using tourniquets less, infiltrate the carpal tunnel with corticosteroids less, and place deep sutures less often. Furthermore, performing concomitant procedures along with release of the transverse carpal ligament has decreased. Orthotic use and duration postoperatively also decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant differences are evident between management of CTS between 1987 and 2011, no consensus has emerged.

Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release.

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a very common hand condition, which after a failure of conservative treatment can be treated successfully with surgical decompression in either an open or endoscopic manner. On comparing the two techniques there may be some subtle differences; however, both can provide an excellent outcome. This article provides a detailed review of each technique as well as their comparative differences in terms of technique, outcomes, and complications.

Ultrasound-guided injections for de Quervain's tenosynovitis.

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical management of de Quervain's tenosynovitis often includes corticosteroid injections. If the injection does not enter the compartment, or all subcompartments, response to the injection is variable. To ensure proper location of injections we evaluated the role of ultrasound. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined (1) the incidence of two or more subcompartments, (2) the incidence of anatomic variations during surgical release after failed injections, and (3) the relief of pain after ultrasound-guided injections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective series of 40 consecutive patients (42 wrists) diagnosed with de Quervain's tenosynovitis by clinical examination were referred to a radiologist for an ultrasound-guided injection. The radiologist injected the first dorsal compartment and noted any septations. Patients returned for followup where outcomes, DASH, and VAS scores were calculated. The treating surgeon was blinded to any anatomic variations. Followup was at 6 weeks and a minimum of 6 months (mean, 6 weeks, range, 3-17 months; mean, 11 months, range, 7-18 months). Four patients were lost to followup. RESULTS: Multiple subcompartments were noted in 22 of 42 (52%) wrists. At the 6-week followup, 36 of the 37 wrists examined in 36 patients (97%) had at least partial resolution of symptoms. Multiple subcompartments were identified in 52% of cases. At last followup, the mean DASH and VAS scores were 18.4 and 2.2, respectively. However 14% of wrists had recurrence of symptoms, all of which had subcompartments on ultrasound. No adverse effects from the injections were noted. CONCLUSION: We found ultrasound-guided injections to be useful for treatment of de Quervain's tenosynovitis. Our success with ultrasound-guided injections was slightly better than that reported in the literature and without adverse reactions.

Subchondral bone marrow lesions associated with knee osteoarthritis.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent condition typically measured by the level of joint space thinning. However, it has been shown that the degree of joint space narrowing correlates poorly with the incidence and magnitude of knee pain. A review of recent and past literature suggests that chronic bone marrow edema (BME) or bone marrow lesions may be linked to pain, the progression of cartilage damage, and the acceleration of joint degeneration. The literature further provides strong support that chronic BME may be an additional target for treatment. This case study has shown that a treatment to repair BME by restoring support and relieving abnormal stresses with accepted internal fixation and bone stimulating surgical techniques is effective in relieving knee OA pain. The literature review and case study herein are provided as a basis for the treatment of chronic BME as an important addition to the current knee OA treatment paradigm.

Skin cancers of the hand and upper extremity.

Skin cancers represent the most common primary malignancies of the hand. They typically present as painless lesions on areas of high sun exposure, such as the dorsum of the hand and upper extremity. The most common malignancy is squamous cell carcinoma, followed by basal cell carcinoma and melanoma. The key to successful treatment is early and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Unlike open biopsies, which are indicated for deep soft tissue and bone lesions, biopsies for skin cancer can be performed under local anesthesia in the office setting in the form of shave or punch biopsies. A number of nonsurgical treatment options are available for treatment. However, when surgical excision is indicated, appropriate margin resections are dictated by the grade and stage of the malignancy.