Martin Glud

Introduction: Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS) is a treatment option for high-risk facial nonmelanoma skin cancer with high cure rates. Especially on the nasal tip, the tissue sparing properties of MMS are appealing. The nasal tip is a common location of nonmelanoma skin cancer and can be a challenging anatomical structure for reconstructive surgery due to its prominent location in the face, the shortage of spare tissue, as well as the stiffness and composition of different skin types, cartilage and bone. Objectives: The aim of the present paper is to review and demonstrate how reconstruction of the nasal tip can be done successfully to improve the care for patients undergoing MMS in this area. Methods: Using selected literature on the area and the surgeons experience, each method of repair are described including their individual advantages and challenges. Pictures and consent were selected from one patient who underwent each repair method and three photos are presented in this paper: one after tumor resection, one immediately after repair, and one minimum 6 months post-surgery. Results: We present eight surgical methods as well as pictures from previous surgeries. Conclusions: The results demonstrate obtainable results using very different surgical methods and the importance of an individualized approach to repairing cutaneous defects of the nasal tip.

The high incidence of sunlight-induced human skin cancers reveals a need for more effective photosensitizing agents. In this study, we compared the efficacy of prophylactic photodynamic therapy (PDT) when methylene blue (MB), riboflavin (RF), or methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) were used as photosensitizers. All mice in four groups of female C3.Cg/TifBomTac hairless immunocompetent mice (N = 100) were irradiated with three standard erythema doses of solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation (UVR) thrice weekly. Three groups received 2 × 2 prophylactic PDT treatments (days 45 + 52 and 90 + 97). The PDT treatments consisted of topical administration of 16% MAL, 20% MB, or 20% RF, and subsequent illumination that matched the photosensitizers’ absorption spectra. Control mice received no PDT. We recorded when the first, second, and third skin tumors developed. The pattern of tumor development after MB-PDT or RF-PDT was similar to that observed in irradiated control mice (p > 0.05). However, the median times until the first, second, and third skin tumors developed in mice given MAL-PDT were significantly delayed, compared with control mice (256, 265, and 272 vs. 215, 222, and 230 days, respectively; p < 0.001). Only MAL-PDT was an effective prophylactic treatment against UVR-induced skin tumors in hairless mice.