R Mandavia1, K Kapoor2, J Ouyang3, H Osmani4. 1. Academic Surgery,Northwest Thames Foundation School,London,UK. 2. ENT Department,Guy's Hospital,London,UK. 3. Imperial College London,School of Medicine,London,UK. 4. North Middlesex University Hospital,London,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ear cartilage piercing is increasingly popular and has a significant complication rate. Contrary to popular belief, there are no minimum qualifications required to practice ear piercing. This study evaluated ear cartilage piercing practices in London, UK. METHOD: Practitioners at 25 piercing parlours completed a telephone questionnaire assessing piercing practice. RESULTS: Ninety-six per cent of practitioners were aware of the risk of infection post-piercing. Four per cent, 12 per cent and 0 per cent of practitioners were aware of keloid scarring, hypertrophic scarring and cauliflower ear respectively. No practitioners were aware of any other complications. Their consent forms did not document any ear cartilage complications. Twenty-eight per cent of participants advised clients to seek medical attention following a complication. Forty per cent did not provide written post-piercing guidance. CONCLUSION: Piercing practitioners were insufficiently aware of ear cartilage piercing complications. It is unlikely that informed consent was obtained prior to piercing. The post-piercing practice of the majority of parlours did not follow published national guidance.
BACKGROUND:Ear cartilage piercing is increasingly popular and has a significant complication rate. Contrary to popular belief, there are no minimum qualifications required to practice ear piercing. This study evaluated ear cartilage piercing practices in London, UK. METHOD: Practitioners at 25 piercing parlours completed a telephone questionnaire assessing piercing practice. RESULTS: Ninety-six per cent of practitioners were aware of the risk of infection post-piercing. Four per cent, 12 per cent and 0 per cent of practitioners were aware of keloid scarring, hypertrophic scarring and cauliflower ear respectively. No practitioners were aware of any other complications. Their consent forms did not document any ear cartilage complications. Twenty-eight per cent of participants advised clients to seek medical attention following a complication. Forty per cent did not provide written post-piercing guidance. CONCLUSION: Piercing practitioners were insufficiently aware of ear cartilage piercing complications. It is unlikely that informed consent was obtained prior to piercing. The post-piercing practice of the majority of parlours did not follow published national guidance.