Sabouraud’s Sign: A Contemporary Assessment of Hair Breakage

Hair breakage can be as distressing for patients as hair loss, yet the two phenomena have very different aetiologies, prognoses and management strategies. Sabouraud’s sign, which might be known today as a hair‐breakage test, remains one of the simplest hair clinic assessment techniques for distinguishing increased hair shedding from intrinsic hair-shaft fragility. Although first described by the French dermatologist-mycologist Raymond Sabouraud in the early twentieth century, the test has endured because it provides immediate, low-cost biomechanical information that no imaging modality can yet replicate in real time. This article reviews the technique, pathophysiological underpinnings, diagnostic yield and limitations of Sabouraud’s sign.

Historical context and definition: Raymond Sabouraud’s original description arose from his work on tinea capitis, where he noted that infected hairs fractured under minimal traction. Subsequent authors formalised the observation into a semi-quantitative “sign” of reduced tensile strength. In modern terminology the sign is considered positive when breakage occurs at forces insufficient to extract intact hair roots, in contrast with the classic pull test that counts extracted telogen hairs. Although the primary literature of the 1910s is not indexed in contemporary databases, the conceptual framework survives essentially unchanged.

Technique and biomechanical rationale: The canonical method, still used for trichogram preparations, employs rubber-sheathed forceps to grasp 20–60 hairs close to the scalp. Incremental traction is applied until either the hair slips, is plucked with its bulb or fractures along the shaft. An alternative digital method – grasping a tuft between finger and thumb while pulling the free distal ends – produces equivalent results and dispenses with instruments.

Sabouraud’s sign investigates the strength and integrity of the keratin matrix of the cortex. Tensile failure indicates disruption of disulphide cross-linking or cortical–cuticular architecture, whether due to congenital, metabolic or acquired reasons. Unlike the conventional pull test, which reflects follicular cycling, a positive Sabouraud test is therefore a surrogate for reduced shaft resilience rather than for active shedding.

Intrinsic factors predisposing to a positive sign: A spectrum of congenital and inherited hair-shaft conditions present with brittl­eness detectable by Sabouraud’s test:

• Monilethrix and pseudomonilethrix: periodic hair shaft constrictions along the length of a fiber act as predetermined fracture planes.
• Pili torti and related ATP7A-linked disorders (Menkes syndrome): torsional weakness in twisted hair leads to corkscrew fracture and hypotrichosis.
• Trichorrhexis nodosa, trichothiodystrophy and bubble hair: structural nodes or vacuoles in the hair create regions of abrupt tensile inconsistency.
• Trichorrhexis invaginata in Netherton syndrome: “bamboo hair” invaginates and snaps within the cup-and-ball interface.

Current reviews of hair-shaft disorders list Sabouraud’s manoeuvre as an early screening step for the above entities and emphasise that positive results cluster in the “fragility” arm of their classification schemes.

Extrinsic insults revealed by the test: Chemicals and other factors in the environment can reduce tensile strength in morphologically normal hair shafts. Bubble hair is due to heat induced fragility: intracortical steam bubbles form in hair fibers when wet hair is exposed to heat above 125 °C (257 °F), producing focal weakness and a positive Sabouraud sign. Alkaline chemical hair straighteners, bleaching, repetitive brushing, ultraviolet exposure and certain systemic medications (e.g. retinoids, kinase inhibitors) have all been linked to increased hair fracture on traction. Because patients do not always volunteer grooming practices, a positive sign may prompt the dermatologist to ask about otherwise overlooked environmental contributions to the condition.

Distinguishing breakage from shedding: A central diagnostic value of Sabouraud’s sign lies in differentiating hair shaft breakage from true alopecia. In telogen or anagen effluvium the standard pull test yields whole hairs with bulbs, whereas Sabouraud’s test either remains negative or produces intact telogen hairs. Conversely, when the sign is positive, the dermatologist should suspect some form of hair shaft pathology even if overall hair density appears normal. Dhurat and Saraogi’s large trichological review highlights that traction producing loss of >10 % of grasped hairs typically indicates effluvium, whereas easy fracturing implicates shaft weakness. This distinction guides whether microscopic shaft analysis or follicular-cycle investigations should follow.

Practical applications in the clinic:

1. Point-of-care triage:  A positive Sabouraud sign rapidly directs the consultation towards structural analysis (light microscopy, polarised microscopy) and away from endocrine or autoimmune screening.
2. Therapeutic monitoring: In acquired hair fragility, serial negative conversion of the sign can mark objective improvement after cessation of heat or chemical trauma, or other environmental cause.
3. Patient education: Demonstrating breakage during examination offers a vivid visual cue, encouraging adherence to protective hair-care regimens.
4. Integration with trichogram: Because the test is often performed immediately after plucking hair for a trichogram, it imposes no additional procedural burden but adds qualitative information on shaft integrity.

Limitations and sources of error: The manoeuvre is operator dependent. Force magnitude is neither standardised nor easily reproducible; interobserver variation in results can exceed 30 %. Bundles with mixed anagen–telogen composition may also confound interpretation, and coiled or tightly curled hair is harder to grip uniformly. False negatives arise when only distal hair segments are damaged (e.g. weathering); false positives can occur if the hair is extremely long or wet, lowering tensile threshold. Attempts to objectify traction with handheld dynamometers show promise, but no consensus thresholds have been validated.

Contemporary relevance and future perspectives: While high-resolution trichoscopy and optical coherence tomography have revolutionised non-invasive hair diagnostics, neither modality directly measures mechanical resilience of hair. Sabouraud’s sign therefore retains a unique niche. Emerging devices that integrate digital force gauges with image capture may soon quantify breakage threshold, converting the qualitative sign of Sabouraud into a consistently measurable biomechanical parameter for clinical trials. In resource-limited settings, however, the classic two-finger technique will likely remain indispensable.

Conclusions: Sabouraud’s sign endures because it translates complex hair-shaft biomechanics into an immediate, clinically actionable observation. For the dermatologist it fulfils three roles: (i) screening for intrinsic shaft defects, (ii) uncovering damage caused by the environment, and (iii) discriminating hair fracture from hair shedding. When interpreted alongside trichoscopy and a meticulous exposure history, the manoeuvre continues to inform diagnosis, counselling and therapeutic monitoring in everyday practice. Far from being an anachronism, Sabouraud’s simple traction test exemplifies the enduring value of hands-on clinical examination in the era of digital dermatology.

Bibliography