A Systematic Review of Aesthetic Surgery Training Within Plastic Surgery Training Programs in the USA: An In-Depth Analysis and Practical Reference

Evaluating Plastic Surgery Resident Satisfaction Globally: Predictors and Recommendations for Training Enhancement

BACKGROUND

Measures of quality in resident training in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) programs are scarce and often methodologically inconsistent. Our research provides insights from current PRS trainees globally, mapping their training inputs, expected outputs, and recommendations for program improvements.

METHODS

A global online survey was conducted among PRS residents across 70 countries to gauge their satisfaction with residency training, capturing training inputs such as the number of surgeries attended and seminars they participated in. We also extracted residents' proposed recommendations for program improvement. We investigated the explanatory role of training inputs, demographics, hospital characteristics, and country income on resident satisfaction and graduate competence.

RESULTS

The analysis incorporated data from 518 PRS residents. On average, residents attended 9.8 surgeries and 1.3 seminars per week. Simultaneously, there was a positive correlation between the perceived level of professional competency and training inputs, particularly seminars attended (p - value = 0.001). Male residents tended to report higher satisfaction (p - value = 0.045) with their training (67%) compared with their female counterparts (58%), while those with family responsibilities also demonstrated slightly higher satisfaction levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis expands the evidence base regarding a "global hunger" for more comprehensive seminar-based and hands-on surgical training. Resident recommendations on program improvement reveal the need to address gaps, particularly in aesthetic surgery training. The development of healthcare business models that allow for aesthetic procedures in training institutions is crucial in the promotion of aesthetic surgery training during residency. Policymakers, program directors, and stakeholders across the world can leverage these findings to formulate policies addressing the weaknesses of training programs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Complications of Chemical Peels, Lasers, and Energy-Based Device Procedures Performed by Core Cosmetic Physicians: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been a proliferation of physicians of different levels of experience and training offering nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. Rising demand, compounded by increasing utilization of new and existing technologies by numerous physician specialties, compels discussion of adequate standardized training and patient safety.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who presented to our single site dermatology clinic for managment of complications following chemical peel, laser or energy-based device treatments performed by core cosmetic physicians between the years of 2013 and 2024 was conducted. Core cosmetic physicians included plastic surgery, facial surgery/otolaryngology, oculoplastic surgery, and dermatology. Charts were reviewed for documentation of the type of complication, procedure causing the complication, and physician credentials, and referral source.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were identified as having complications from chemical peeling, laser treatment or energy-based devices. Devices implicated included CO2 laser (fractional or fully ablative), chemical peels, 1064 nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser, 1320 nm Nd:YAG laser, intense pulsed light, 595 nm pulsed dye laser, Q-switched Nd:YAG laser, radiofrequency with and without microneedling, and 1550 nm erbium-doped fiber laser. Complications included hypertrophic scarring, atrophic scarring, post-inflammatory erythema, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and post-inflammatory hypopigmentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in experienced hands, complications can arise. It is imperative that all physicians offering cosmetic treatments are equipped to recognize clinical endpoints, identify and manage complications, or make a timely referral to decrease the risk of a permanent and potentially devastating esthetic outcome for patients.

Trends in Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship Training: An Analysis of Supply and Demand

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic surgery fellowship applications were consolidated under the San Francisco Match in 2018. The impact of these changes on aesthetic program and applicant numbers had not yet been investigated.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we sought to evaluate changes in programs, positions, applications, match rates, and fill rates since aesthetic surgery joined the San Francisco Match. We also aimed to compare these trends to craniofacial surgery, microsurgery, and hand surgery fellowships over this same time period.

METHODS

San Francisco and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match data for aesthetic, craniofacial, microsurgery, and hand fellowships were obtained from 2018 to 2022, and the number of applications, positions, programs, and successful matches were evaluated.

RESULTS

The number of aesthetic fellowship positions increased from 17 to 41 (141%) over the period studied. This resulted in increased match rates and more unfilled positions. Over the same period, fellowship positions for craniofacial, hand, and microsurgery increased by 3.4%, 6%, and 2.5% respectively. There was no increase in applications to any postgraduate subspecialty, nor was there any change in the number of residents pursuing fellowship. Similarly, there was no change in the percentage of fellowship-bound residents applying to any given discipline.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in aesthetic fellowship programs and positions did not generate an increase in applications. Applications to other plastic surgery subspecialties also failed to increase. Unlike aesthetic fellowships, their program numbers have remained stable. Given the limited fellowship applicant pool, our focus should be on enhancing the quality of existing aesthetic programs rather than continuing to increase the number of aesthetic positions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

A SWOT Analysis of Hot Topics in Plastic Surgery Resident Education: Consensus From the ACAPS 10th Annual Winter Meeting

Background

With the aim of facilitating a critical self-reflection on how to align plastic surgery education with making excellent plastic surgeons, a rotating small-group session followed by live interactive audience polling was used to perform a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis at the 10th Annual American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons Winter Meeting.

Methods

The final day of the conference included a 3-hour session of rotating small groups followed by live interactive audience polls discussing the following six relevant educational topics: the Plastic Surgery Common Application and resident selection, aesthetic surgery education, leadership development and business education, embedded fellowships and focused training, mentorship, and faculty retention.

Results

A total of 60 individuals participated in the activity. A SWOT analysis was successfully performed for each educational topic, and a minimum of four opportunities were identified per topic to help guide future endeavors. Examples of opportunities include releasing recommendations for the implementation of holistic review; developing formal guidelines for aesthetic surgery education in residency via collaboration between ACAPS, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and The Aesthetic Society; creating extended focused elective rotations; integrating business education into formal curricula for all training levels; enforcing transparency regarding position expectations and offerings including salary, call schedule, and current challenges; and more.

Conclusion

The results of this study will help guide future initiatives by the ACAPS to improve resident education and academic retention.

Art and Safety of Gluteal Augmentation: Future Directions

Gluteal augmentation is a quickly evolving field that continues to grow in the realms of patient safety, surgical education, and technological advancement. This article discusses innovation in gluteal augmentation and suggests potential new pathways for developing the practice of gluteal augmentation.

Development and Implementation of an Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship After Residency: The Universidad La Salle/Hospital Angeles Experience

BACKGROUND

Postgraduate training in plastic surgery is heterogeneous between countries, with exposure to aesthetic surgery being a reflection of this. Fellowships in Mexico have usually consisted of tutorial teaching, providing graduates with experience but a lack of formal structure. The aim of his work is to present a University-backed program focused on aesthetic surgery and propose the expansion of this kind of program.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional review of surgical cases was performed over a five-year period from 2015 to 2019. Data were obtained from the senior surgeon's practice charts. Information was recorded using a data sheet including patients' demographic characteristics, procedures performed and type of anesthesia applied. Descriptive analyses of patient demographic and clinical characteristics were performed. Continuous variables are expressed in central tendency measures, and categorical values are presented as percentages.

RESULTS

1282 procedures were performed on 885 patients, 797 females (90%) and 88 males (10%). Mean age was 44.6 ± 13.8 years. Case load consisted in 545 breast procedures (42.5%), 372 body contour surgeries (29.0%), 305 facial aesthetic procedures (23.8%) and 60 miscellaneous procedures (4%). The most common surgeries were breast augmentation (249, 19.4%), alloplastic breast reconstruction (165, 12.8%), blepharoplasty (163, 12.7%), liposuction (151, 11.7%), and abdominoplasty (107, 8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

A University backed program focused on aesthetic surgery is feasible and desirable in multiple national and international institutions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Declining commercial market share in facial reconstructive surgery: Implications for academic plastic surgery and training future generations

BACKGROUND

As a surgical discipline without anatomic boundaries, plastic surgery overlaps with several other specialties. This study aims to measure longitudinal trends in the proportion of commercially reimbursed procedures performed by plastic surgeons compared to other specialists. We hypothesize that there is encroachment in commercial market share by anatomically defined subspecialists within otolaryngology, ophthalmology, and dermatology.

METHODS

The IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases were queried to extract patients who underwent rhinoplasty, eyelid procedures, and skin cancer reconstruction covered by commercial insurance from 2007 to 2016 in the USA. Surgeon specialty was identified. Poisson regression modeled predictors of provider specialty for each procedure over time, adjusting for patient gender, region, facility setting, and diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 430,472 rhinoplasty, eyelid, and skin cancer procedures were performed during the study period. For each year, the proportion of cases performed by plastic surgeons decreased by 2.1% for rhinoplasty compared to otolaryngologists, 2.0% for eyelid procedures compared to ophthalmologists, and 3.0% for skin cancer reconstruction compared to dermatologists (p<0.001). Plastic surgeons were less likely to perform the procedure if the underlying diagnosis or preceding procedure drew from referral bases of "anatomic" specialists, such as sinonasal disease for otolaryngologists (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.829), disorders of the eyelid or orbit for ophthalmologists (IRR 0.646), and Mohs excision for dermatologists (IRR 0.381) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic surgeons are losing ground on commercially reimbursed facial reconstructive procedures historically performed by the specialty. Plastic surgeons must develop strategies to preserve the commercial market share of these procedures and avoid compromise to academic centers and resident education.

A 10-Year Review of Surgical Outcomes at the Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland Resident Aesthetic Clinic

Background

In 2014, the Plastic Surgery Residency Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) increased minimum aesthetic surgery requirements. Consequently, the resident aesthetic clinic (RAC) has become an ever more important modality for training plastic surgery residents.

Objectives

To analyze demographics and long-term surgical outcomes of aesthetic procedures performed at the Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland (JH/UM) RAC. A secondary objective was to evaluate the JH/UM RAC outcomes against those of peer RACs as well as board-certified plastic surgeons.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent aesthetic procedures at the JH/UM RAC between 2011 and 2020. Clinical characteristics, minor complication rates, major complication rates, and revision rates from the JH/UM RAC were compared against 2 peer RACs. We compared the incidence of major complications between the JH/UM RAC and a cohort of patients from the CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL) database. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare complication rates between patient populations, with a significance set at 0.05.

Results

Four hundred ninety-five procedures were performed on 285 patients. The major complications rate was 1.0% (n = 5). Peer RACs had total major complication rates of 0.2% and 1.7% (P = .07 and P = .47, respectively). CosmetAssure patients matched to JH/UM RAC patients were found to have comparable total major complications rates of 1.8% vs 0.6% (P = .06), respectively. At JH/UM, the minor complication rate was 13.9%, while the revision rate was 5.9%.

Conclusions

The JH/UM RAC provides residents the education and training necessary to produce surgical outcomes comparable to peer RACs as well as board-certified plastic surgeons.

Level of Evidence 3

ESPRAS Survey on Continuing Education in Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery in Europe

BACKGROUND

Specialty training in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery is a prerequisite for safe and effective provision of care. The aim of this study was to assess and portray similarities and differences in the continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A detailed questionnaire was designed and distributed utilizing an online survey administration software. Questions addressed core items regarding continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe. Participants were addressed directly via the European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS). All participants had detailed knowledge of the organization and management of plastic surgical training in their respective country.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 29 participants from 23 European countries. During specialization, plastic surgeons in Europe are trained in advanced tissue transfer and repair and aesthetic principles in all parts of the human body and within several subspecialties. Moreover, rotations in intensive as well as emergency care are compulsory in most European countries. Board certification is only provided for surgeons who have had multiple years of training regulated by a national board, who provide evidence of individually performed operative procedures in several anatomical regions and subspecialties, and who pass a final oral and/or written examination.

CONCLUSION

Board certified plastic surgeons meet the highest degree of qualification, are trained in all parts of the body and in the management of complications. The standard of continuing education and qualification of European plastic surgeons is high, providing an excellent level of plastic surgical care throughout Europe.

HINTERGRUND

Die Facharzt-Weiterbildung für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie ist eine Grundvoraussetzung für sichere und effektive Patientenversorgung. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war die Darstellung von Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in der Weiterbildung für Plastische Chirurgie innerhalb von Europa.

MATERIALIEN UND METHODEN

Ein internetbasierter Fragebogen wurde mit Hilfe eines kostenlosen Formularerstellungstools erstellt und verteilt. Die Fragen betrafen Kernpunkte der Weiterbildung für Plastische Chirurgie in Europa. Die Teilnehmer wurden direkt über das European Leadership Forum (ELF) der European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS) kontaktiert. Alle Teilnehmer hatten weitreichende Kenntnisse über die Organisation und Struktur der plastisch-chirurgischen Weiterbildung in ihrem jeweiligen Land.

ERGEBNISSE

29 Teilnehmer*innen aus 23 europäischen Ländern nahmen an der Umfrage teil. Die Weiterbildung für Plastische Chirurgie beinhaltet grundlegende Prinzipien und Techniken zur Wiederherstellung von Form und Funktion innerhalb der verschiedenen Säulen der Plastischen Chirurgie, sowie in allen Körperregionen. In den meisten europäischen Ländern ist eine Rotation in der Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin und die Behandlung kritisch kranker Patienten obligatorisch. Voraussetzung für die Facharztbezeichnung ist die mehrjährige, national organisierte Weiterbildung, der Nachweis einer festgelegten Anzahl selbstständig durchgeführter Operationen, sowie die mündliche und/oder schriftliche Abschlussprüfung.

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG

Fachärzte für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie sind hochqualifiziert und auch im Umgang mit Komplikationen geschult. Der Standard der Weiterbildung der europäischen Plastischen Chirurgen ist hoch, so dass innerhalb Europas eine hohe Qualität plastisch-chirurgischer Versorgung gewährleistet ist.

Use of Cosmetic Facial Injectables After Facial Aesthetic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Over the last two decades, both invasive and minimally-invasive aesthetic procedures have proliferated. Aesthetic surgeons often recommend injectable treatments after cosmetic facial surgery for multiple reasons. Yet, literature is lacking on how cosmetic surgery affects post-operative facial injectable use.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aim to identify predictors of facial injectable use after cosmetic facial surgery.

METHODS

All adult patients operated on by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who had any of the following cosmetic facial surgeries were included: rhytidectomy, blepharoplasty, rhinoplasty, or genioplasty. Patient demographics, clinical history, intraoperative factors, and use of cosmetic facial injectables (neurotoxin, facial fillers, deoxycholic acid, poly-L-lactic acid) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 227 patients who underwent facial cosmetic surgery were reviewed, of which 158 were included. 89 patients had rhytidectomy (56.3%), 112 had blepharoplasty (70.9%), 28 had rhinoplasty (17.7%), and 7 had genioplasty (4.4%). 44.3% patients received injectables after their surgery (n=73), compared to only 17.7% before surgery (n=28) (p<0.001). The most common post-operative injectables were neurotoxins (48.5%) and facial fillers (46.0%), followed by deoxycholic acid (2.7%) and poly-L-lactic acid (2.7%). Multivariate regression revealed factors positively correlated with future injectable use were index blepharoplasty or rhinoplasty, and history of pre-operative neurotoxin injection (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmetic facial injectables are an important consideration in achieving and maintaining optimal facial aesthetics. Their use, especially neurotoxins and facial fillers, increases among patients post-operatively. These results highlight the contribution of injectable procedures in the context of multidimensional care for augmenting facial aesthetics.

Patterns in Academic Cosmetic Surgery Practice: Population Differences and Procedure Preferences

PURPOSE

Although growth in cosmetic surgery remains constant in the private setting, academic cosmetic surgery practices are often underdeveloped. Our study aims to determine which patient populations access academic cosmetic surgery services.

METHODS

The 2018 Health Care Utilization Project Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample database was used for data analysis. Encounters for the following American Society of Plastic Surgery top 5 procedures for 2020 were selected: blepharoplasty, breast augmentation, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and rhytidectomy. Patient encounter data were collected because it relates to median income, geographic location, and primary payer status.

RESULTS

The 2018 Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample data set contained 44,078 encounters at academic surgical centers for the procedures listed previously. Low-income patients account for 13.7% of academic cosmetic surgery encounters compared with 37.9% for high-income patients. Breast augmentation rates are higher among low-income patients (20.5% vs 17.2%, P < 0.001), and high-income patients undergo rhytidectomy more frequently (5.7% vs 3.0%, P < 0.001). In the academic setting, patients from large metropolitan areas encompass the majority of cosmetic encounters (71.0%), and these patients are more likely to proceed with rhinoplasty, rhytidectomy, and liposuction procedures (P < 0.001). Patients from smaller metropolitan areas undergo blepharoplasty more frequently compared with those from larger metropolitan areas (56.4% vs 41.8%, P < 0.001). Self-pay and privately insured patients comprise the majority of academic cosmetic surgery encounters (40.8% and 29.9%, respectively). Eighty-eight percent of Medicare patients within this cohort underwent blepharoplasty, whereas self-pay patients accessed breast augmentation, liposuction, and rhytidectomy more often than other insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Income status, patient location, and primary payer status play an important role in academic cosmetic surgery access rates and procedure preferences. Academic cosmetic practices can use these insights to tailor their services to the populations they serve.