Academic Status of Plastic Surgery in the United States and the Relevance of Independence

[Registry Research Funding of the German Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (DGPRÄC) and Research Funding Report 2021/2022]

BACKGROUND

Research is an integral part of academic medicine. In plastic surgery, it sets the course for innovations in the specialty. The purpose of this study is to present the research performance of plastic surgeons in Germany for the period 2021/2022 and to compare it with previous periods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The directors of plastic surgical academic institutions reported all requested/approved and rejected research applications to public, non-public and industrial funding organizations. Data was gathered within an established online database. In addition, the DFG´s public database GEPRIS was screened for plastic surgical research grants. Data was also collected regarding research infrastructure and organization at the participating centers.

RESULTS

105 applications were reported to 54 different funding agencies from 20 plastic surgery centers. 37 funding applications were submitted to the major public funding agencies DFG, BMBF, BMWi, BMG, BMVg, G-BA and EU. Of these, 59,5% (22/37) were DFG, 13,5% (5/37) each BMBF and EU, 5,4% (2/37) BMWi, and 2,7% (1/37) each BMG, BMVg, and G-BA applications. The average funding volume of these proposals was 401,515 euros. Approved DFG proposals were most frequently assigned to the review board 205-27 Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery, Reconstructive Surgery (n=10/16, 62,5%). Over time, the research registry shows an increase in the number of proposals in general and those granted. 70,0% (14/20) of participating sites had their own experimental research laboratory, while only 40,0% (8/20) had their own clinical trial center.

CONCLUSION

The 2021/2022 Research Funding Report once again highlights the impressive research accomplishments of the plastic surgery community.

Recommendations on Attaining Departmental Status: A Survey of Division Chiefs Turned Department Chairs

In 2009, the Association of Academic Chairmen of Plastic Surgery, now known as the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons (ACAPS), published a white paper endorsing the conversion of plastic surgery divisions into autonomous departments, motioning for other national organizations to follow suit. ACAPS' rationale outlined 11 factors intended to promote the favorability of attaining departmental status within an institution. Through surveying division chiefs turned founding department chairs who successfully executed this transition, we evaluate the practicality and efficacy of these guidelines. A survey was distributed to founding chairs of plastic surgery departments that were established after ACAPS' 2009 white paper. Information pertaining to institutions' demographic information and respondents' utilization of the principles and suggestions espoused in the white paper was obtained. The survey achieved an 86% response rate. The average time needed for the transition was 22 ± 12 months. Four of seven chairs were familiar with the 2009 ACAPS white paper. Garnering support from hospital administrators and institutional stakeholders, having fiscal profitability within the institution, and coordinating an integrated plastic surgery training program were ranked as the top three most important factors, respectively. This study assesses ACAPS' recommendations on transitioning from a division to a department on the basis of perceived utility by academic leaders who recently navigated the process. The most frequently cited factors for a successful transition included rallying support from institutional stakeholders and ensuring profitability. Additionally, aligning the timing with a concurrent transition of leadership can expedite the process.

Trends in Fellowship Training across United States Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Academic Faculty

Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) academic positions are more coveted each year. We aim to determine the requirement of fellowship training before PRS academic appointments.

METHODS

PRS faculty at U.S. academic institutions associated with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons were identified. Outcomes studied included integrated versus independent training, fellowships, gender, academic title, years on faculty, and publications before current hire.

RESULTS

Of the 1052 PRS faculty identified, 646 were included across 41 states and the District of Columbia. Seventy-four percent were identified as men (n = 477), and 26.2% (n = 169) identified as women. Academic faculty were significantly more likely to have completed fellowship before hire than not (p<0.0001). An integrated route of training was associated with higher odds of fellowship completion before appointment (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.49-3.22). Odds of fellowship completion was significantly greater among faculty who graduated 5-10 years ago (OR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.48-4.41) and within the last 5 years (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.18-3.17). Professors were less likely to have completed fellowship training before appointment compared with assistant professors (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80). Regarding gender, number of prior publications, or completion of another degree, no significant difference was found between fellowship- and non-fellowship-trained faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more plastic surgeons enter the field through a shortened integrated residency, the increasing demand for further subspecialization may cause significant challenges for upcoming graduates pursuing an academic appointment. Undergoing additional training considerably impacts social and financial decision-making early in surgical careers for newly graduated residents.

Advancing the Specialty of Plastic Surgery While Helping and Supporting Other Surgical Services at an Academic Medical Center

ABSTRACT

While helping and supporting other surgical services at our academic medical center, we noticed that many clinical problems presented to our plastic surgery team are truly unique and challenging. Many of the necessary reconstructive procedures, performed by the senior author, had never been published in plastic surgery textbooks or the literature before. Because of the plastic surgeon's creative problem-solving ability, we use reconstructive treatment plans that also innovate and advance the field of plastic surgery. In this case series, we share our experience with creative solutions for the management of novel and challenging clinical problems faced by our plastic surgery service. The resultant and effective solutions for each challenging case have all been published in reputable plastic surgery journals by the senior author. Once published, our inventive reconstructive solutions can be harnessed by other plastic surgeons and trainees and new standardized techniques or solutions for these unique and challenging clinical problems can be established. Ultimately, plastic surgeons can evolve their specialty through helping and supporting other surgical services at an academic medical center by establishing innovative solutions for ever arising challenging clinical problems. Once again, the plastic surgery team in a tertiary hospital supports many surgical services so that more complex surgical procedures can be performed safely and complications from other surgical services can be managed successfully. Therefore, adequate support for a plastic surgery service, by the hospital or department, is critical in developing a strong plastic surgery program at an academic medical center.

[Registry Research Funding of the German Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (DGPRÄC) and Research Funding Report 2019/2020]

BACKGROUND

 Since 2015/16 the DGPRÄC collects, evaluates and publishes the research activities of academic sections, departments and clinics for plastic surgery at university hospitals in Germany, in order to raise the awareness of plastic surgical research performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The directors of plastic surgical academic institutions were contacted via the DGPRÄC and asked to report any requested/approved and rejected research applications to public, non-public and industrial funding organizations. Data was collected in our previously established online database: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6F5xmTyw-k7VKJx_2jkPA4LBXsA0sgBGMrC3rx_4bHj6uzQ/viewform?usp=sf_link. In addition, applications were identified via the DFG's public database GEPRIS.

RESULTS

 A total of 41 funding applications to the public funding institutes DFG, BMBF, BMWi, BMG and EU were identified. 75.6 % (31/41) of the applications had already been approved at the time of data collection, of which 77.4 % (24/31) were DFG, 9.7 % (3/31) were BMWi, 6.5 % (2/31) were EU and 3.2 % (1/31) were BMBF or BMG applications. The average funding amounted to 358 301 Euro. In 50.0 % (12/24) of the cases, the approved DFG proposals were assigned to the subject review board 205-27 Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery, Reconstructive Surgery.

CONCLUSION

 The continuous publication of plastic surgical research funding reports submitted by the convention of university plastic surgeons of the DGPRÄC portraits the excellent, collaborative research activity in the field of plastic surgery.

[Economic aspects of interdisciplinary plastic surgery: change in Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG) due to procedures of reconstructive microsurgery]

BACKGROUND

 Advances in reconstructive microsurgery have led to significant improvements in the surgical care of complex interdisciplinary cases. At the same time, however, this also increases the resource expenditure of the plastic surgeon involved. This study aimed to analyse the relationship between increase in revenue and resource expenditure in reconstructive microsurgery at a university hospital of maximum care with regard to the treatment of interdisciplinary patients.

METHODS

 In 2018 and 2019, all cases of interdisciplinary cooperation were followed up at one location of a plastic surgery department of a university clinic. The interdisciplinary surgical cases were identified from the collective and evaluated prospectively with regard to inpatient treatment days, surgical resource expenditure and economic development (DRG before and after microsurgical reconstruction).

RESULTS

 In 2018 and 2019, a total of 68 free microsurgical flaps were performed in 64 interdisciplinary cases. 62 of these cases met the criteria for interdisciplinary surgical treatment. Considering the contribution of plastic surgery to the economic development and the associated resource expenditure, there is a significant increase in all parameters (p < 0.0001). Thus, the Case Mix Index (CMI) rose by 20.2 %, inpatient treatment days by 79.1 %, the number of surgical interventions by 62.4 %, cumulative incision-suture time by 131.4 % and total surgeon hours by 75.4 %.

CONCLUSION

 Reconstructive microsurgical procedures lead to a significant increase in revenue in interdisciplinary surgical cases. However, a significant increase in resource consumption is observed as well. Moreover, these additional costs are not always adequately reflected in the revenue of the DRG. This especially applies to DRGs with a high initial cost weight. To ensure modern, individual, patient-oriented and guideline-compliant patient care, there is, therefore, an urgent need to adapt the (G-)DRG system to the additional resource consumption. In addition, in the case of interdisciplinary surgical cases, a clear internal cost allocation must be carried out in accordance with the surgical resource expenditure.

Analysis of Trends in the Selection and Production of U.S. Academic Plastic Surgery Faculty

Purpose:

In academic plastic surgery, there is a paucity of data examining the relationship between program rank, faculty training history, and production of academic program graduates. The purpose of this study is to determine objective faculty characteristics that are associated with a high program reputation.

Methods:

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited integrated Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) programs were ranked using Doximity and divided into Top-quartile programs and Other programs. Accredited medical schools were ranked using U.S. News and World Report. Individual faculty profiles were reviewed on program websites for information on prior training.

Results:

Seventy-nine programs with 712 faculty were identified and objectively analyzed. Compared to Other PRS programs, Top-quartile programs had a higher proportion of faculty that trained at Top-quartile residency programs (P < 0.0001) and Top-quartile medical schools (P < 0.0001). Top-quartile programs also had the highest proportion of faculty that trained at the same institution for fellowship (P = 0.0001), residency (P = 0.03), medical school (P = 0.4), or any prior training (medical school, residency, or fellowship) (P = 0.002). Top-quartile programs were associated with the largest total faculty size (P < 0.0001) and the largest number of graduates entering the field of academic plastic surgery (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions:

Program reputation is associated with PRS faculty selection and production. Top-ranked programs are more likely to have faculty that previously trained at the same institution or at top-ranked programs. Top-ranked programs are more likely to graduate residents that will become academic plastic surgeons.