Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T10:45:02.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating ear cartilage piercing practices in London, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2014

R Mandavia ,
K Kapoor ,
J Ouyang  and
H Osmani
R Mandavia*
Affiliation:
Academic Surgery, Northwest Thames Foundation School, London, UK
K Kapoor
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
J Ouyang
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, School of Medicine, London, UK
H Osmani
Affiliation:
North Middlesex University Hospital, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr R Mandavia, ENT Department, University Hospital Lewisham, Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6LH, UK Fax: 0207 723 3281 E-mail: rishimandavia@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

EarBody PiercingCartilageRisk

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 6 , June 2014 , pp. 508 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Waugh, M. Body piercing: where and how. Clin Dermatol 2007;25:407–11Google Scholar
2Biggar, RJ, Haughie, GE. Medical problems of ear piercing. N Y State J Med 1975;9:1460–2Google Scholar
3Cortese, TA, Dickey, RA. Complications of ear piercing. Am Fam Physician 1971;4:66–72Google Scholar
4Fernandez, AP, Castro, NI, Anias, CR, Pinto, PC, Castro, JC, Carpes, AF. Post-piercing perichondritis. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2008;74:933–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Simplot, TC, Hoffman, HT. Comparison between cartilage and soft tissue ear piercing complications. Am J Otolaryngol 1998;19:305–10Google Scholar
6Stirn, A. Body piercing: medical consequences and psychological motivations. Lancet 2003;361:1205–15Google Scholar
7Hanif, J, Frosh, A, Marnane, C, Ghufoor, K, Rivron, R, Sandhu, G. Lesson of the week: “high” ear piercing and the rising incidence of perichondritis of the pinna. BMJ 2001;322:906–7Google Scholar
8Cumberworth, VL, Hogarth, TB. Hazards of ear-piercing procedures which traverse cartilage: a report of Pseudomonas perichondritis and review of other complications. Br J Clin Pract 1990;44:512–13Google Scholar
9Jervis, PN, Clifton, NJ, Woolford, TJ. Ear deformity in children following high ear-piercing: current practice, consent issues and legislation. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:519–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Saleeby, ER, Rubin, MG, Youshock, E, Kleinsmith, DM. Embedded foreign bodies presenting as earlobe keloids. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1984;10:902–4Google Scholar
11Smith, L. Regulation of Tattooing and Body Piercing Businesses, Science and Environment Section, standard note: SN/SC/5079. London: House of Commons Library, 2010Google Scholar
12The All England Law Reports. London: Butterworths, 1936–Google Scholar
13Tattooing and body piercing guidance toolkit. In: http://www.cieh.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=47704 [4 May 2014]Google Scholar