Background: Debridement of toenails is a common procedure that leads to the production of nail dust aerosols in the work environment. Previous studies indicate that inhaled nail dust can cause respiratory distress and eye irritation. This comprehensive review aimed to assess the available literature on the effect of nail dust exposure and to evaluate nail dust as a potential occupational hazard for podiatric physicians. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted via PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Risks of bias of the collected studies were evaluated using various assessment tools to match the type of study design. A qualitative analysis of the included studies was performed, from which primary and secondary outcome measures were extracted: prevalence of symptoms and specific microorganisms in nail dust. Results: Of 403 articles screened, eight met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome measure resulted in a pooled prevalence of eye-related symptoms being the most consistent symptom reported (41%–48%). The secondary outcome measure resulted in a pooled prevalence of Trichophyton rubrum (9.52%–38%) and Aspergillus (11.11%–35.48%) as the most common microorganisms present in nail dust. Conclusions: From the included eight articles, we found that nail dust is a potential occupational hazard, especially for those exposed more often. Aspergillus and T rubrum are most commonly associated with nail dust leading to development of respiratory illness. It is important to take preventive measures in podiatric medical clinics by using improved and efficient personal protective equipment for workers exposed to nail dust. Detailed health safety guidelines can be developed to decrease respiratory symptoms and diseases from nail dust exposure.

Background: Given that excess opioid prescriptions contribute to the United States opioid epidemic and there are few national opioid prescribing guidelines for the management of acute pain, it is pertinent to determine if prescribers can sufficiently assess their own prescribing practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate podiatric surgeons’ ability to evaluate if their own opioid prescribing practice is less than, near, or above that of an “average” prescriber. Methods: We administered a scenario-based, voluntary, anonymous, online questionnaire via Qualtrics which consisted of five surgery-based scenarios commonly performed by podiatric surgeons. Respondents were asked the quantity of opioids they would prescribe at the time of surgery. Respondents were also asked to rate their prescribing practice compared to the average (median) podiatric surgeons. We compared self-reported behavior to self-reported perception (“I prescribe less than average,” “I prescribed about average,” and “I prescribe more than average”). ANOVA was used for univariate analysis between the three groups. We used linear regression to adjust for confounders. Data restriction was used to account for restrictive state laws. Results: One hundred fifteen podiatric surgeons completed the survey from in April 2020. Less than half of the time, respondents accurately identified their own category. Consequently, there were no statistically significant differences between podiatric surgeons who reported that they “prescribe less,” “prescribe about average,” and “prescribe more.” Paradoxically, there was a flip in scenario #5, whereas respondents who reported they “prescribe more” actually prescribed the least and respondents who believed that they “prescribe less” actually prescribed the most. Conclusions: Cognitive bias, in the form of a novel effect, occurs in postoperative opioid prescribing practice; in the absence of procedure-specific guidelines or an objective standard, podiatric surgeons, more often than not, were unaware of how their own opioid prescribing practice measured up to other podiatric surgeons.

Background: Ingrown toenails are a common condition requiring outpatient procedures in podiatric medical clinics. To prevent recurrence, chemical matrixectomy is often recommended. Postprocedural pain management is largely based on preferences rather than on a formal guideline. This study aims to explore the postprocedural prescribing behavior among practicing podiatric physicians to foster future guideline and policy development. Methods: We administered an open, voluntary, anonymous questionnaire via an online survey platform that included a common nail procedure scenario (chemical matrixectomy) and a prescribed demographics section. Podiatric physicians were asked what they would prescribe to manage postprocedural pain. Opioid and nonopioid options were provided. We developed two multiple logistic regression models to identify associations between prescriber characteristics and prescribing opioids after “standard” chemical matrixectomy. Results: Of the 860 podiatrists who completed the survey, 8.7% opted to prescribe an opioid. Hydrocodone was most commonly chosen. A median of 18 opioid pills were prescribed. No prescriber characteristics were associated with prescribing opioids after chemical matrixectomy scenario. There is a large discrepancy and knowledge gap in the literature on the optimal postprocedural pain management for outpatient procedures, including procedures in specialties such as dentistry and dermatology. The median number of opioids prescribed by podiatrists is higher than that by dentists for management of third molar extraction. In contrast, opioid-prescribing behavior among the 8.7% of respondents is similar to dermatologic management of postprocedural pain in Mohs surgery. Conclusions: Podiatric physicians cannot assume that their prescribing of opioids does not affect the opioid abuse problem in the United States. The presented study serves to be an initiation for procedure-specific opioid prescription benchmarking to foster future guideline and policy development. After nail procedures, opioids should not be routinely prescribed.