Hi Erica! When applying gel color... if the client wanted can you rebuild the missing toenail with acrylic or builder gel or would you not recommend it ?🤔 I love your videos, thanks ❤
great video. i have an old school sink stainless steel - more of a bench. i am going to use this technique but use your foot helper to raise their foot at level height, so that i can work better. i just purchased your efile, and i am excited to be working smarter not harder.
Thank you! The only online certification course we have is for Onyfix nail correction system. You can check that out here: ericasata.com/products/1326815?variant=39326304043086
yeah total removal is almost always unnecessary. That doctor not only violated his patient's right to true informed consent by not properly explaining the outcome, but he performed a likely extreme version of the actual necessary procedure. If a nail can't be corrected with something like the onyfix system and removal is necessary, total removal is widely considered extreme and unnecessarily invasive. I'm only a medical student so take what I say with a grain of salt here, but partial removal is almost always a better option. This involves cutting down the ingrown portion and burning the section of the nail plate's growth point that supplies that ingrown section so that the nail as a whole remains and continues to grow healthily but the portion of the nail plate that is too wide for the toe is stunted and unable to grow anymore. This is still way more invasive than something like Onyfix so I firmly believe less invasive options should be pursued first, but total removal is unnecessary in 94% of cases that require removal of the nail plate due to repeated ingrowns. So I'm not only very sorry that your client wasn't properly educated, but it also appears as if your client's doctor doesn't do any continued education or he would be up to date with a standard of practice that is almost a decade old. Edit: Typically, I like to give providers the benefit of the doubt because during clinical rotations I've realized it's rare for things to be cut and dry, however this sort of issue is not unheard of and frankly it's infuriating. Some providers (in most cases, men above the age of 55) prefer to take the more aggressive approach that ensures total prevention of future reccurance of the disease, however that is rarely in the best interest of the patient. The two best examples of this are total toenail removal and total prostate removal for prostate cancer. We've already gone over toes so I'll talk about prostate cancer, prostate cancer grows so slowly it's nearly impossible for it to kill you directly so when surgical intervention is required most doctors in modern times opt to save some of the nerve fibers so that the patient can have a hope of a normal sex life yet some doctors knowingly deny them that because a disease that will likely cause them no harm if it does reccur, may reccur if they don't remove everything. This means that while what they are doing may provide benefit, the harm to the patient likely outweighs that benefit and so the patient should be presented both options and be allowed to choose, however this is almost never done in situations where the doctor would prefer the aggressive approach because they don't wish to dissuade them which fails to take into account that if the patient would be dissuaded you shouldn't even attempt to convince them or hide facts because it is unethical. Both of these situations are easy to fix with continued education and yet they are not fixed because the same demographics most likely to perform unnecessarily aggressive procedures that will not offer additional patient benefit (white men above the age of 55) are also the demographics least likely to seek out continuing education and yet the two fields at hand here (urology and podiatry) are dominated by white men over the age of 55 which only serves to further exacerbate the issue. In conclusion, because of all of this I cannot give this provider the benefit of the doubt and I frankly suggest your client speaks to them about it and asks if there was a genuine reason to remove the entire nail plate as opposed to burning part of it, and if there is not a reason that your client feels is adequate I suggest they make a complaint to the medical board to hopefully lead them to order this physician to attend continuing education in order to prevent this from happening to someone else.
Hi Erica! When applying gel color... if the client wanted can you rebuild the missing toenail with acrylic or builder gel or would you not recommend it ?🤔
I love your videos, thanks ❤
You have no idea how long I’ve looked for a video like this!!!! Love it!!! Thank you for uploading!!😊
You're so welcome!
Where i can buy yiur machine
great video. i have an old school sink stainless steel - more of a bench. i am going to use this technique but use your foot helper to raise their foot at level height, so that i can work better. i just purchased your efile, and i am excited to be working smarter not harder.
Excellent educational video. I just ordered practically everything I can’t wait to perform a dry pedi!
So glad to hear it! Let us know how it goes!
Enjoy watching your videos. Do you have any classes you offer online?
Thank you! The only online certification course we have is for Onyfix nail correction system. You can check that out here: ericasata.com/products/1326815?variant=39326304043086
Do you happen to have a course for all of this?? I took Meticulous Manicurist Course. Haven’t finished it but I don’t think she goes into dry pedi.
We do have workshops! You can visit them on our website here: ericasata.com/pages/education
What e-file machine are you using ?
It's found here! ericasata.com/collections/electric-files/products/medicool-pro-power-35k-portable
yeah total removal is almost always unnecessary. That doctor not only violated his patient's right to true informed consent by not properly explaining the outcome, but he performed a likely extreme version of the actual necessary procedure. If a nail can't be corrected with something like the onyfix system and removal is necessary, total removal is widely considered extreme and unnecessarily invasive. I'm only a medical student so take what I say with a grain of salt here, but partial removal is almost always a better option. This involves cutting down the ingrown portion and burning the section of the nail plate's growth point that supplies that ingrown section so that the nail as a whole remains and continues to grow healthily but the portion of the nail plate that is too wide for the toe is stunted and unable to grow anymore. This is still way more invasive than something like Onyfix so I firmly believe less invasive options should be pursued first, but total removal is unnecessary in 94% of cases that require removal of the nail plate due to repeated ingrowns. So I'm not only very sorry that your client wasn't properly educated, but it also appears as if your client's doctor doesn't do any continued education or he would be up to date with a standard of practice that is almost a decade old.
Edit: Typically, I like to give providers the benefit of the doubt because during clinical rotations I've realized it's rare for things to be cut and dry, however this sort of issue is not unheard of and frankly it's infuriating. Some providers (in most cases, men above the age of 55) prefer to take the more aggressive approach that ensures total prevention of future reccurance of the disease, however that is rarely in the best interest of the patient. The two best examples of this are total toenail removal and total prostate removal for prostate cancer. We've already gone over toes so I'll talk about prostate cancer, prostate cancer grows so slowly it's nearly impossible for it to kill you directly so when surgical intervention is required most doctors in modern times opt to save some of the nerve fibers so that the patient can have a hope of a normal sex life yet some doctors knowingly deny them that because a disease that will likely cause them no harm if it does reccur, may reccur if they don't remove everything. This means that while what they are doing may provide benefit, the harm to the patient likely outweighs that benefit and so the patient should be presented both options and be allowed to choose, however this is almost never done in situations where the doctor would prefer the aggressive approach because they don't wish to dissuade them which fails to take into account that if the patient would be dissuaded you shouldn't even attempt to convince them or hide facts because it is unethical. Both of these situations are easy to fix with continued education and yet they are not fixed because the same demographics most likely to perform unnecessarily aggressive procedures that will not offer additional patient benefit (white men above the age of 55) are also the demographics least likely to seek out continuing education and yet the two fields at hand here (urology and podiatry) are dominated by white men over the age of 55 which only serves to further exacerbate the issue. In conclusion, because of all of this I cannot give this provider the benefit of the doubt and I frankly suggest your client speaks to them about it and asks if there was a genuine reason to remove the entire nail plate as opposed to burning part of it, and if there is not a reason that your client feels is adequate I suggest they make a complaint to the medical board to hopefully lead them to order this physician to attend continuing education in order to prevent this from happening to someone else.