By Elayne Angel
I bounded out of bed this morning excited to finally have the time to record my “President’s Corner” video, having finished the current round of edits on the forthcoming update of the APP Procedure Manual. Imagine my shock and dismay when I looked in the mirror to find that my entire face was hugely blown up with red burned-looking patches of tissue under both eyes and in my nasolabial folds. (One of my eyes was all but swollen shut!) My best guess is that I’m having an allergic reaction to a facial moisturizer that I’ve used for quite some time with no other such incidents, and the doctor I visited thought the same. Unfortunately, this means no video recording for me today…
But this episode did remind me of a problem I experienced while guest piercing a few months back. When I travel, I generally make use of the supplies provided by each studio, requesting only that my glove size (XS) be “on hand.” I had never had any problems with sensitivities or allergies before, so I was very surprised when the backs of my hands swelled up with an itchy and painful red rash. The gloves I wore were nitrile, which according to several sources (i.e., Ambitex University and the National Safety Council) is less apt to cause a reaction than latex, which I have used for decades without issues. On my final day I grimaced in pain each time I changed gloves and washed my hands. The residual effects—including inflammation, soreness, and itching—lasted over a week and were followed by flaking and peeling. It was not pleasant or pretty, and it was kind of scary. What if all types of medical gloves suddenly caused such a reaction?
Granted, my appointment book has been extraordinarily full lately, which is wonderful. I usually pierce one client after the next throughout my workday; so, I wash my hands and wear gloves in a continuous cycle for many hours, day after day, but piercers in very busy studios frequently do the same.
When the problem occurred, I didn’t know whether it was the soap I was using to wash my hands or the gloves themselves. So the next time I worked, I used the same soap and changed up the gloves to chloroprene, and thankfully didn’t have any problems. It became clear that nitrile was the culprit, even though I had worn it successfully in the past. Many piercers are aware that long and/or frequent exposure to a substance can lead to sensitivities, which is one of the reasons latex allergies are so prevalent in the medical and dental fields. (Editor’s note: In fact, another article in this issue—by Kendra Jane—tackles allergies as well. Click here to read more.)
In any case, one takeaway lesson for today is this: situations can change and flexibility is needed.
So, on to the topic I planned to cover in the video:
The Association recently received a plea for help in a message from a piercer in Louisiana who was distressed to learn that as of March 7, 2013, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners has issued a formal opinion outlawing surface anchors (the preferred terminology of the Association of Professional Piercers). It was provided in response to an inquiry from one of the Health Inspectors at the Food and Drug Unit, which is responsible for regulating body artists in the state. The letter from the Medical Board states, “…the practice known as ‘dermal anchoring’ or ‘dermal piercing’ is a medical procedure [emphasis added] in that placement would be underneath the epidermis layer of the skin.”
The piercer who sent us the correspondence mentioned that after speaking with Mr. Warren, the Health Inspector for her area who requested the ruling, she believed the practice was decreed a medical procedure because the State Board was informed that these piercings were all being performed with biopsy punches. In the state of Louisiana, piercers are prohibited from using such punches.
The APP will be sending a letter to the Executive Director of the Medical Board who signed the ruling, and also to the Health Inspector to let them know that surface anchors can be done with ordinary piercing needles and that biopsy punches need not be used—and that the organization does not consider this form of body adornment to be outside the realm of ordinary body piercings. We will also explain that other body piercings routinely traverse this same tissue. Further, we will be sharing our formal position statement with them:
What is the APP Position on Surface Anchors? (Also referred to as Single-Point Piercings, Dermal Anchors, Microdermals, and other names.)
In a surface anchor piercing procedure, a tiny ornament is inserted into a single opening that is formed in the tissue with the same tools that are used for body piercing. This opening is the entrance as well as the exit. When properly performed by a skilled practitioner, surface anchor piercing is no more risky than an ordinary body piercing and takes no longer to perform or to heal. They are considered to be body piercings by the Association of Professional Piercers.
Surface anchor piercings are similar to “surface piercings,” which are done on flat areas of the body, but successful placement options are greatly expanded. Surface anchor piercings are a viable alternative to standard surface piercings as they appear to be easier to heal and not as subject extensive scarring. Any residual scarring is apt to be limited due to the tiny size of the jewelry.
Surface Anchor piercings are much less invasive to insert and remove, and should not be confused with subdermal or transdermal implants, which are more extreme forms of body art that do not fall within the scope of the Association of Professional Piercers.
We hold out hope that our support will be able to get the ban overturned in the state of Louisiana, which is where I ran my own studio, Rings of Desire, for over a dozen years before Hurricane Katrina hit. But that’s a different story…
In early 2000, I personally assisted the legislators for that state in promulgating the original body art regulations. At that time, they were quite amenable to input from professionals in the community. Hopefully they still are, and the decision will be reversed once they have additional information. The APP has had success in the past getting such a ban overturned in the state of New Jersey. But there is no guarantee, so once again the theme may recur: sometimes situations change and adaptability is necessary.
