<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/">
  <channel>
    <title>AMA Publishing Group: Hair Procedures Topic Collection</title>
    <link>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/</link>
    <description>
    </description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:44:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Silverchair</generator>
    <managingEditor>editor@pubs.jamanetwork.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>webmaster@pubs.jamanetwork.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <title>Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow: The Abandonment of Body Hair by American Women</title>
      <link>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1654885</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Lee KC, Ladizinski B. </author>
      <description>&lt;span class="paragraphSection"&gt;Although the revival of the practice of body hair removal is a relatively recent trend in Western culture, this practice has deep roots in history. Rudimentary cave drawings depict beardless men hunting in the wild. Egyptian, Greek, and Roman men were known to shave their scalps and beard to avoid giving their enemy a handhold grip in battle. Alexander the Great ordered all of his men to shave their beards for this specific reason. Greek and Roman sculptures commonly depict hairless men and women, as this ideal was associated with class and civility.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <prism:volume xmlns:prism="prism">149</prism:volume>
      <prism:number xmlns:prism="prism">2</prism:number>
      <prism:startingPage xmlns:prism="prism">208</prism:startingPage>
      <prism:endingPage xmlns:prism="prism">208</prism:endingPage>
      <prism:doi xmlns:prism="prism">10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.1756</prism:doi>
      <guid>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1654885</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Common Causes of Injury and Legal Action in Laser Surgery Causes of Injury and Legal Action in Laser Surgery </title>
      <link>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1654904</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Jalian H, Jalian CA, Avram MM. </author>
      <description>&lt;span class="paragraphSection"&gt;&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Objective&lt;/div&gt;To identify common causes of legal action, injuries, claims, and decisions related to medical professional liability claims stemming from cutaneous laser surgery.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Design&lt;/div&gt;Search of online public legal documents using a national database.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Main Outcome Measures&lt;/div&gt;Frequency and nature of cases, including year of litigation, location and certification of provider, injury sustained, cause of legal action, verdict, and indemnity payment.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Results&lt;/div&gt;From 1985 to 2012, the authors identified 174 cases related to injury stemming from cutaneous laser surgery. The incidence of litigation related to laser surgery shows an increasing trend, with peak occurrence in 2010. Laser hair removal was the most common litigated procedure. Nonphysician operators accounted for a substantial subset of these cases, with their physician supervisors named as defendants, despite not performing the procedure. Plastic surgery was the specialty most frequently litigated against. Of the preventable causes of action, the most common was failure to obtain an informed consent. Of the 120 cases with public decisions, 61 (50.8%) resulted in decisions in favor of the plaintiff. The mean indemnity payment was $380 719.&lt;div class="boxTitle"&gt;Conclusions&lt;/div&gt;Claims related to cutaneous laser surgery are increasing and result in indemnity payments that exceed the previously reported average across all medical specialties. Nonphysicians performing these procedures will be held to a standard of care corresponding to an individual with appropriate training; thus, physicians are ultimately responsible for the actions of their nonphysician agents.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <prism:volume xmlns:prism="prism">149</prism:volume>
      <prism:number xmlns:prism="prism">2</prism:number>
      <prism:startingPage xmlns:prism="prism">188</prism:startingPage>
      <prism:endingPage xmlns:prism="prism">193</prism:endingPage>
      <prism:doi xmlns:prism="prism">10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.1384</prism:doi>
      <guid>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1654904</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Contradictory State Administrative Regulation of Minimally Invasive Cosmetic Procedures in Kentucky and North Carolina Regulating Minimally Invasive Cosmetic Procedures </title>
      <link>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1654906</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Gillum JD, Dellavalle RP. </author>
      <description>&lt;span class="paragraphSection"&gt;The regulation of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures (MICPs), such as laser skin rejuvenation and hair removal, should be of keen interest to dermatologists for a number of reasons, the most important of which is patient safety.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <prism:volume xmlns:prism="prism">149</prism:volume>
      <prism:number xmlns:prism="prism">2</prism:number>
      <prism:startingPage xmlns:prism="prism">137</prism:startingPage>
      <prism:endingPage xmlns:prism="prism">138</prism:endingPage>
      <prism:doi xmlns:prism="prism">10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.1524</prism:doi>
      <guid>http://pubs.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1654906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>