Sharps Injuries Are Common Among Mohs Surgeons, Survey Finds


More than half of Mohs surgeons report at least one sharps injury in the past year, mostly self-inflicted, survey finds.


  • Data on the incidence of sharps injuries among dermatologic surgeons is limited.

  • In a cross-sectional analysis of anonymous survey responses from members of the American College of Mohs Surgery, researchers aimed to determine the incidence and types of sharps injuries among Mohs surgeons.

  • The researchers used descriptive statistics for continuous and nominal variables (percentage and frequencies) to report survey data and Fisher exact or chi-square analysis of categorical variables to obtain P values.


  • Of the 60 survey respondents, more than half (56.7%) were from single-specialty group practices, 26.6% were from academic practices, and fewer than half (43.3%) had been in practice for 15 or more years.

  • In the past year, 56.7% of respondents experienced at least one sharps injury. Of these, 14.7% involved exposure to a bloodborne pathogen, which translated into an annual exposure risk of 7.6% for any given Mohs surgeon.

  • The top two types of sharps injuries were self-inflicted suture needlestick (76.5%) and other types of self-inflicted needlestick injuries (26.5%).

  • Of respondents who sustained a sharps injury, 44.1% did not report them, while 95% of all survey respondents said they had access to postexposure prophylaxis/protocols at their workplace.

  • The researchers determined that the average annual rate of sharps injury was 0.87.


  • “In best practices to prevent sharps injuries, the authors recommend that a standardized sharps handling protocol be developed and disseminated for dermatologic surgeons and their staff,” the researchers wrote.


  • Faezeh Talebi-Liasi, MD, and Jesse M. Lewin, MD, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, conducted the research. The study was published in the November 2023 issue of Dermatologic Surgery.


  • The study’s cross-sectional observational design and small sample size was skewed toward single-specialty and academic practices.


  • The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Source: Read Full Article