Resident and Program Director Perceptions of Aesthetic Training in Plastic Surgery Residency: An Update

Surgical Training Simulators for Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Rhinoplasty training currently follows an apprenticeship model that is largely observational. Trainees have limited experience in performing maneuvers of this complex surgery. Rhinoplasty simulators can address this issue by providing trainees with the opportunity to gain surgical simulator experience that could improve technical competences in the operating room. This review amalgamates the collective understanding of rhinoplasty simulators described to date. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PubMed, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, and Web of Science databases were all searched for original research on surgical simulators for rhinoplasty education and reviewed by independent reviewers. Articles underwent title and abstract screening, and then relevant articles underwent full-text review to extract simulator data. Seventeen studies, published between 1984 and 2021, were included for final analysis. Study participant numbers ranged from 4 to 24, and included staff surgeons, fellows, residents (postgraduate year 1-6), and medical students. Cadaveric surgical simulators comprised eight studies, of which three were with human cadavers, one study was a live animal simulator, two were virtual simulators, and six were three-dimensional (3D) models. Both animal and human-based simulators increased the confidence of trainees significantly. Significant improvement in various aspects of rhinoplasty knowledge occurred with implementation of a 3D-printed model in rhinoplasty education. Rhinoplasty simulators are limited by a lack of an automated method of evaluation and a large reliance on feedback from experienced rhinoplasty surgeons. Rhinoplasty simulators have the potential to provide trainees with the opportunity for hands-on training to improve skill and develop competencies without putting patients in harm's way. Current literature on rhinoplasty simulators largely focuses on simulator development, with few simulators being validated and assessed for utility. For wider implementation and acceptance, further refinement of simulators, validation, and assessment of outcomes is required.

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

Evaluation of a Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Resident Non-surgical Cosmetic Clinic Experience

INTRODUCTION

An important component of plastic surgery residency training is independent cosmetic patient management. A resident cosmetic clinic was created at Oregon Health & Science University in 2007 to expand this experience. The cosmetic clinic has traditionally been most successful in offering nonsurgical facial rejuvenation with neuromodulators and soft tissue fillers. This study focuses on the demographics of the patient population and the treatments provided over a 5-year period and compares this experience to those of the same program's attending cosmetic clinics.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all patients seen at Oregon Health & Science University's Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Resident Cosmetic Clinic between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021 was performed. Patient demographics, type of injectable received (neuromodulator versus soft tissue filler), location of injection, and additional cosmetic procedures were evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients met the study criteria, which included 114 seen in the resident clinic (RC), 31 seen in attending clinic (AC), and 55 patients seen in both. A primary analysis compared the two groups seen in the resident and attending only clinics. The average age of patients seen in the RC was younger, 45 versus 51.5 (P ≤ 0.05). There was a trend toward more patients in the RC being involved in healthcare as compared to those patients seen in the AC, but this difference was not found to be statistically significant. The median number of neuromodulator visits in the RC was 2 (1, 4) versus 1 (1, 2) in the AC (P ≤ 0.05) The most common location for neuromodulator injections in both clinics was the corrugators.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the resident cosmetic clinic were younger females, most receiving neuromodulator injections. No statistically significant differences were identified in patient population, injections received, and location of injections between the two clinics, indicating a similar trainee skill set and patient care plan between the two clinics.

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.

Development of Competencies in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Training

The goal of graduate surgical education is to ensure that the graduate is competent to practice in his or her chosen specialty. Traditionally, surgical learning has been based on an apprenticeship model; that is, the long-term observation and assessment of the trainee over a prolonged period of time. Patient expectations, work hour restrictions, and expectations of increased faculty oversight have led to decreased resident autonomy and independence. Graduates completing surgical training with less surgical autonomy may have lower clinical competence, which may affect patient safety, patient outcomes, and career satisfaction. This will require the modification of current assessment and training methods.

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

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.

A Core Curriculum for Postgraduate Program in Non-Surgical Aesthetics: A Cross-sectional Delphi Study

Background

The desire for portraying a young and beautiful face and body is driving people to seek aesthetic treatment and accelerating the exponential growth of nonsurgical aesthetic (NSA) procedures. Unfortunately, despite impressive advances, NSA is yet to have a formal clinical education program.

Objectives

This study aimed to identify the content and structure of an evidence-based postgraduate curriculum in NSA.

Methods

The Delphi questionnaire was developed after a comprehensive literature review and a focus group discussion. The questionnaire was emailed to 40 experts and 20 trainee physicians worldwide through the online survey platform and was asked to assign a rating on a 4-point Likert scale. A “1” represents a strong disagreement about integrating a topic in the NSA curriculum, and a “4” indicates a firm agreement. A pre-fixed percentage agreement of 80% and Cronbach’s α = 0.90 was established to represent a consensus for the current study.

Results

The response rate for the Delphi study was 90.0%, 88.8%, and 90% in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. The experts and trainee physicians agreed with all the proposed topics (≥80%) and considered them critical for the proposed NSA curriculum. The mean score for each was ≥ 3, and Cronbach’s α value for the Delphi was 0.94, confirming internal consistency and reliability.

Conclusions

The consensus demonstrates significant advances toward developing an evidence-based curriculum for a postgraduate program in NSA, which is essential to support the growing demand for trained aesthetic physicians.

A Systematic Review on the Implementation and Educational Value of Resident Aesthetic Clinics

BACKGROUND

Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) provide plastic surgery residents with hands-on aesthetic surgery training. Although RACs have demonstrated successful surgical outcomes without compromising patient care, few studies have evaluated the efficacy or educational value of RACs to increase resident confidence and competence in procedures. In addition, clinic structures vary widely among institutions, with each clinic offering a unique patient volume, caseload, and degree of resident autonomy that impacts the clinic's educational value. This systematic review identifies existing RAC practices, compares clinic structures, and proposes a curriculum framework to maximize educational value for residents.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review of plastic surgery residency training program RACs. We queried PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 2000 to April 2020. Eligible articles were original articles that discussed RAC structure and educational value. Data abstracted included details on clinic structure (eg, volume, location, cost, clinic operations) and trainee-perceived educational value (eg, resident satisfaction, resident confidence in procedures).

RESULTS

Of 1199 identified publications, 10 met the inclusion criteria: 6 single-site studies and 4 national survey studies. Among the single-site studies, annual volumes ranged from 22 to 68 patients/year and 35 to 81 cases/year. Resident aesthetic clinics were all staffed by full-time academic faculty (100%); one-third also were staffed by adjunct faculty and 17% also by community plastic surgeons. Resident involvement varied by hours in clinic and degree of autonomy. The survey studies found that RACs increase resident confidence and competence in performing aesthetic procedures and identified critical challenges to RAC implementation (eg, financial viability, continuity of care) that limited RAC educational value. Based on this review's findings, we propose a 6-step RAC curriculum framework for training programs seeking to establish an RAC and maximize the clinic's educational value.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident aesthetic clinics are increasingly important for providing plastic surgery residents with aesthetic training. Patient and case volume, degree of resident autonomy, and clinic attending physicians are critical determinants of the educational value of RACs. We hope our findings can aid plastic surgery training programs in better organizing educational and sustainable RACs.

A Systematic Review on the Current Trend In Nonsurgical Aesthetic Training for Knowledge, Skill, and Professional Identity Formation

BACKGROUND

Non-surgical aesthetics is a rapidly growing healthcare domain and lacks pedagogically sound education and training programs. The trainee physicians often participate in short courses which are outside of the scope of an existing postgraduate training program to acquire the necessary knowledge and procedural skills. However, such training programs lack values and interests that shape critical thinking and holistic decision-making, often referred to as professional identity.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to analyse current trends in non-surgical aesthetic clinical education to form knowledge, skills, and professional identity.

METHODS

A detailed literature search was conducted in nine databases; PubMed [United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), Bethesda, MD], Cochrane (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [(CRD) University of York, York, United Kingdom], and Google Scholar (Google, Mountain View, CA) for relevant studies published between January 2010 and December 2020, with an update in September 2021.

RESULTS

Fifty-five articles were identified through electronic searches, amongst which forty were selected following a review of the abstracts. Sixteen articles were identified as the best evidence for the detailed and iterative review based on their relevance and fit to the inclusion criteria. Unfortunately, none of the included studies designed their questionnaire based on the Kirkpatrick Model, which is best known for analysing and evaluating the results of training and educational programs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides valuable insight into graduate professional identity formation and graduates' readiness for independent clinical practice. Therefore, particular consideration should be given to incorporating these triggers when developing evidence-based postgraduate curricula for non-surgical aesthetics.

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

BACKGROUND

The importance of aesthetic surgery exposure for plastic and reconstructive trainees has been recently validated by the expansion of case requirements for aesthetic procedures from 50 to 150, as well as resident-driven desire for increased cosmetic exposure throughout training. We aim to systematically review the literature at a national level to report on overall trends in aesthetic surgery training within PRS residencies.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified all English articles published in the USA between 2000 and 2020, using a combination of "aesthetic surgery", "cosmetic surgery", "plastic surgery", "residency and internship", "education", and "training."

RESULTS

Our initial search resulted in 415 articles. After review of inclusion and exclusion criteria, in addition to cross-referencing, 41 studies remained, including 15 studies discussing resident and/or program director surveys, eight studies discussing teaching methods, sixteen studies discussing dedicated resident clinics, four studies discussing cosmetic/aesthetic fellowships, three studies discussing cosmetic practice patterns, and eleven studies discussing patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Current literature demonstrates that there are gaps in aesthetic surgery training for PRS residents in the USA, including facial and neck surgeries and non-surgical interventions. Resident clinics have clear benefits for resident education, without sacrificing patient outcomes. Residency programs should consider the development of a resident cosmetic clinic and/or dedicated cosmetic center to increase surgical exposure and increase trainee comfort in providing this subset of procedures. Published literature is limited in consistency of methods of evaluation, and further in-depth analysis of case volume and diversity at training programs within the USA and internationally is indicated.

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 .

Productivity and Efficiency of a Department Resident Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Clinic

Background

There has been increasing demand for aesthetic surgery procedures in the United States, highlighting the critical importance of the competence of plastic surgery residents and rigorous methods of aesthetic surgery training.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to review procedures and outcomes from our plastic surgery resident aesthetic clinic. Outcomes and costs were compared to national averages and reports from the literature.

Methods

A retrospective chart review identified all adult patients who presented to the Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic at NYU Langone Health in 2021. Patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural data, postoperative complications, revisions, and surgeon fees were compiled. A brief confidence survey was distributed to participating residents before and after their clinic rotation. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS software (Armonk, NY).

Results

In 2021, 144/379 consultations led to an operation (38.0% conversion rate), resulting in 420 distinct surgical procedures. The majority (53.3%) of procedures involved the head and neck. Complication and revision rates were 5.5% and 1.0%, respectively, with surgeon fees consistently below the national average. Residents reported being significantly more confident performing face lifts, rhinoplasties, and aesthetic surgery in general following their clinic rotation.

Conclusions

These data represent the largest annual reported study of plastic surgery resident aesthetic procedures and outcomes, demonstrating the high volume and productivity of the NYU Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic. These results further support resident aesthetic clinics as a robust training modality.

Level of Evidence 4

Optimising UK training in aesthetic surgery: A prospective national study using operative logbooks and questionnaires to determine factors associated with trainee participation

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to determine the proportion of UK aesthetic surgery training taking place in the independent sector, how this experience is gained, and factors associated with trainee participation. We also aimed to draw comparisons between training in the National Health Services (NHS) and independent sectors.

METHODS

Plastic Surgery Trainees were asked to complete a 10-item questionnaire, in addition to their usual operative entry on eLogbook, when logging a procedure with an aesthetic operative code, prospectively over a 6-month period. Anonymised data was exported and analysed using SPSS.

RESULTS

A total of 285 questionnaires were completed; all UK training regions were represented. The majority were for NHS procedures (88%), of which 56% were for breast surgery, 23% facial surgery, 19% body contouring, and 2% non-surgical. Trainees were significantly more likely to participate in procedures when they were performed in the NHS (odds ratio, OR, 9.7, p < 0.01) or when they were body contouring surgery (OR 1.5, p < 0.01). Trainees were more likely to participate in perioperative care in an NHS setting (p < 0.01). When trainees attend the independent sector, it was usually within contracted training hours (57%) with their consultant trainer with whom they are working in the NHS (63%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of aesthetic surgery training occurs in the NHS but this is not representative of UK aesthetic practice. There is a need to engage the independent sector to provide formal aesthetic surgery training as part of the plastic surgery training programme, including procedural participation and perioperative care. Additional aesthetic fellowships and mechanisms for mentorship by established consultants should be developed.

Resident Exposure to Aesthetic Surgical and Nonsurgical Procedures During Canadian Residency Program Training

North American residency programs are transitioning to competency-based medical education (CBME) to standardize training programs, and to ensure competency of residents upon graduation. At the centre of assessment in CBME are specific surgical procedures, or procedural competencies, that trainees must be able to perform. A study previously defined 31 procedural competencies for aesthetic surgery. In this transition period, understanding current educational trends in resident exposure to these aesthetic procedures is necessary. The aim of this study was to characterize aesthetic procedures performed by Canadian plastic surgery residents during training, as well as to describe resident performance confidence levels and degree of resident involvement during those procedures. Case logs were retrieved from all 10 English-language plastic surgery programs. All aesthetic procedures were identified, and coded according to previously defined core procedural competencies (CPCs) in the aesthetic domain of plastic surgery. Data extracted from each log included the procedure, training program, resident academic year, resident procedural role, and personal competence. From July 2004 to June 2014, 6113 aesthetic procedures were logged by 55 graduating residents. Breast augmentation, mastopexy, and abdominoplasty were the most commonly performed CPCs, and residents report high levels of competence and surgical role in these procedures. Facial procedures, in particular rhinoplasty, as well as nonsurgical CPCs are associated with low exposure and personal competence levels. Canadian plastic surgery residents are exposed to most of the core aesthetic procedural competencies, but the range of procedures performed is variable. With the implementation of CBME, consideration should be given to supplementation where gaps may exist in aesthetic case exposure.

Financial Analysis of Operating a Resident Aesthetic Clinic

BACKGROUND

Recent changes to the plastic surgery residency training requirements along with a general call for expanded education in cosmetic surgery have encouraged many institutions to incorporate resident aesthetic clinics into their curricula. Although the safety and satisfaction rates of resident aesthetic clinics have been well-studied, their financial viability has not. This study reviews the financial viability of the resident aesthetic clinic at the authors' institution through a cost analysis.

METHODS

Billing data were analyzed for all patient visits to the resident aesthetic clinic of the authors' institution during calendar year 2018. Data were extracted, including type and anatomical location of each procedure, charges collected, and supplies used. A financial analysis was performed based on fixed and variable costs and gross revenue.

RESULTS

A total of 100 unique patients were seen in the clinic over a 1-year period, resulting in 53 operations. This included 15 face, four breast, and 34 body contouring procedures. In addition, 160 cosmetic injections were performed. The gross revenue was $69,955 and the net revenue was $36,600.

CONCLUSIONS

The resident aesthetic clinic at the authors' institution proved to be financially viable. The authors encourage other institutions to more closely examine the financial state of their resident aesthetic clinics as well. Furthermore, the authors hope that this analysis demonstrates to other programs that, with certain practice models, cost should not be a barrier to initiating and maintaining this valuable training tool.

Consumer Awareness and Comfort with Resident-run Cosmetic Clinics: A Crowdsourcing Study

Background:

Resident cosmetic clinics (RCCs) are the training modality of choice among both residents and faculty and are a mainstay at most residency programs.^1–4 Despite this, knowledge of RCCs among plastic surgery consumers remains untested. We hypothesize that the public would be aware of and receptive to RCCs.

Methods:

Participants with prior cosmetic procedures or interest in future cosmetic procedures were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk and asked to complete a survey in September 2020. First, prior awareness of RCCs was assessed. After a brief description of RCCs, perceptions of safety and preferences for care were assessed.

Results:

After screening for quality, 815 responses were included. Forty-five percent of consumers were aware of RCCs. Seventy-six percent of consumers believed that RCCs were just as safe as attending clinics and 65% were comfortable receiving care from fourth-year residents or higher. Belief in RCC safety was associated with 4.8 times higher odds of feeling comfortable receiving care at an RCC [95% confidence interval (3.3–7.1), P < 0.001]. When given a hypothetical choice between residents and attendings in two scenarios, 46% of consumers chose residents for abdominoplasty and 60% chose residents for Botox injections. Belief in RCC safety was associated with choosing a resident or being indifferent in both scenarios.

Conclusions:

Consumer preference regarding RCCs has largely been untested. This study shows that belief in RCC safety influences consumers’ perceived comfort with receiving care at an RCC. This knowledge can help guide RCC practice and maximize learning opportunities for surgeons-in-training.

Aesthetic Surgery in Plastic Surgery Academia

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic surgery is a critical component of academic plastic surgery. As institutions are placing increased focus on aesthetic surgery, there is an opportunity to identify factors that facilitate the creation and maintenance of successful aesthetic plastic surgery programs.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a national survey to evaluate the current state of academic aesthetic surgery and to identify factors that contribute to success.

METHODS

A REDCap 122-question survey was developed and validated by members of the Academic Aesthetic Surgery Roundtable (AASR). The national survey was distributed to department chairs and division chiefs with active ACGME-approved plastic surgery programs (n = 92). Responses underwent Pearson's chi-squared, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and postselection inference analyses. AASR members convened to interpret data and identify best practices.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 64 of 92 queries (69.6%). The multivariate analysis concluded traits associated with successful academic aesthetic surgery practices included the presence of aesthetic surgery-focused, full-time faculty whose overall practice includes >50% aesthetic surgery (P = 0.040) and nonphysician aesthetic practitioners who provide injection services (P = 0.025). In the univariate analysis, factors associated with strong aesthetic surgery training programs included resident participation in faculty aesthetic clinics (P = 0.034), aesthetic research (P = 0.006), and discounted resident aesthetic clinics (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The growth of academic aesthetic surgery practices represents a significant opportunity for advancement of resident training, departmental financial success, and diversification of faculty practices. By identifying and sharing best practices and strategies, academic aesthetic surgery practices can be further enhanced.

Board Certification and Surgeon's Fee for Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

Elective rhinoplasty surgeons' fees vary considerably and are influenced by geographic surgeon density, surgeon's experience, local economic factors, patient demand, and other factors. The American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the American Society of Plastic Surgery, and other organizations certify physicians who profess expertise in rhinoplasty. We sought to determine if specific board certification or experience correlates with higher rhinoplasty fee. An internet search was conducted of seven U.S. metropolitan areas using the search terms "rhinoplasty and "city name." Top search results were surveyed for rhinoplasty fee, years of experience, annual volume of rhinoplasties, board certification, and other demographic data. Using both univariate and multivariate comparisons, the data were analyzed for forces having significant correlation with rhinoplasty fee. Sixty-seven surgeons were included in the study. The average price for ABFPRS certified surgeons was significantly higher than surgeons with other board certifications ($10,550.00 ± 3,722.10 compared with $8,524.50 ± 2816.30, p = 0.0142). The volume of rhinoplasties performed per year was also significantly correlated with fee charged for rhinoplasty by the surgeon (r = 0.37773, p = 0.032). Additionally, surgeons practicing on the West Coast (LA) charged significantly higher fees ($12,059.09 ± 3014.53) compared with the Mid United States. ($8316.07 ± 2449.43) and the East Coast ($9152.86 ± 3639.78) (p = 0.0047). On multivariable linear regression, controlling for volume of rhinoplasty and region of the United States, ABFPRS certified surgeons charged significantly higher fees for rhinoplasty (p = 0.0230). ABFPRS board certification correlates with higher fees charged for rhinoplasty. Other important variables include surgeon's annual rhinoplasty and practice on the West Coast.

No-Charge Nonsurgical Facial Aesthetic Clinic in a Residency Program: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education set minimum case requirements for injectable procedures as a surrogate for procedural competency. Despite the implementation of resident-run aesthetic surgery clinics, evidence suggests that many feel inadequately prepared as they go into practice even after meeting this requirement. To address this issue, our institution has implemented a separate resident clinic dedicated to neurotoxin and filler injections.

OBJECTIVE

The authors discussed the logistics and benefits of how residents, faculty, clinic staff, and industry representatives together have created a no-cost, volunteer patient-based resident injectable clinic.

DESCRIPTION

Two half-day, no-cost clinics per week were established, with 1 clinic day coinciding with the chief resident aesthetic clinic. Designated staff coordinate patient visits and allocate specific rooms for this clinic. Industry representatives have provided injectable products at no cost through resident injectable education programs. Residents in postgraduation years 4 to 6 provide their own patients and perform procedures under direct faculty supervision. All encounters are documented in the electronic health record. To assess the utility of this clinic, a survey was sent to all recent graduates, some of whom participated in this program. Since its inception in May 2018, this injectable clinic has been running successfully with overwhelmingly positive feedback from all eligible residents who participated. To date, there have been no adverse events from these injections.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, the no-cost, volunteer patient-based resident injectable clinic has provided regular educational opportunities for plastic surgery residents to increase their experience with injectable procedures.

Global Needs-Assessment for a Postgraduate Program on Nonsurgical Facial Aesthetics

BACKGROUND

Standardizing training and education in nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures during residency training has long been challenging because majority of the procedures are performed outside the usual teaching hospital settings. Several areas of refinement have been suggested and an increased need for more hands-on training identified in the available literature. Despite the growing demand for nonsurgical facial aesthetics (NSFA), it is yet to be fully integrated into standard postgraduate medical or surgical curriculum.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to explore the current state and the need for medical education and training of aesthetic clinicians across specialties in a formal postgraduate curriculum.

METHODS

A mixed-method, cross-sectional, online research was conducted among physicians involved in training and practicing NSFA between July 2018 and December 2018. Focus group discussion was conducted to ensure the face and content validity of the survey items.

RESULTS

The total responses collected in the trainer's group was 179 and 496 in the trainee's group. The majority of trainers (95%) and trainees (93.8%) across specialties expressed their opinion for the need of a standard postgraduate course in NSFA. Moreover, more than 55% of them felt that 12 months, with a work-based, blended learning approach, would be most suitable for training and education.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey results have underlined the need for specialized training in NSFA to enable clinicians to pursue independent practice with confidence. The authors recommend the inclusion of evidence-based postgraduate programs on NSFA in higher academic institutions as per their educational curriculum.

Perceptions of Preparedness in Plastic Surgery Residency Training

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Graduating competent surgical residents requires progressive independence during training. Recent studies in other surgical subspecialties have demonstrated overall fewer opportunities for resident independence due to changes in residency regulations, medical–legal concerns, and financial incentives. A survey study was conducted to assess perceived autonomy and preparedness during plastic surgery residency training and to assess factors affecting autonomy.

Use of Simulation in Plastic Surgery Training

The nationwide focus on patient safety and the health of residents has increased the demand for educational tools outside the operating room. Simulation is a valuable tool for assessing and developing surgical skills in a controlled and safe environment. The use of simulation as a formal component of training has been increasing in various surgical subspecialties. In general surgery, simulation examinations such as the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery and Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery have become a prerequisite to board certification. Although formal simulation examinations in plastic surgery are not universal, there has been an increase in the use of simulation to increase resident competency in the operating room. For now, we will review the current state of simulation in craniofacial, hand, microvascular, and esthetic surgery and discuss applications for the future. We will also discuss the evolving role of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality in plastic surgery training and testing.

Aesthetic Training in Plastic Surgery Residency

Training in aesthetic surgery is a core element in a plastic surgery residency program. Nevertheless, in the past, many studies have shown the lack of resident confidence in aesthetic procedures upon graduation. In recent years, a number of efforts have been made to address this concern, including increasing the required residency aesthetic case requirements and the integration of resident aesthetic clinics to increase exposure and independence in this aspect of training. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of these resident-run clinics and have substantiated their value as an important educational tool in residency training and validated their safety in patient care. In fact, survey studies have shown that though residents today show a markedly increased confidence in their training when compared with the past, they still feel there is room for improvement in areas such as facial and minimally invasive surgeries, along with procedures that require higher patient volume to refine. In this article, we review the current state of aesthetic surgery training during plastic surgery residency and discuss future directions in the field.

The Role of Resident-Run Clinics for Aesthetic Surgery Training in the Context of Competency-based Plastic Surgery Education

Resident-run clinics (RRCs) have been suggested as a clinical teaching tool to improve resident exposure in aesthetic plastic surgery education. In exchange for reduced cost aesthetic services, RRCs offer trainees the opportunity to assess, plan, execute, and follow surgical procedures in an independent yet supervised manner. With the transition into a competency-based medical education model involving a switch away from a time-based into a milestones-based model, the role of RRCs, within the context of the evolving plastic surgery curriculum has yet to be determined. To that end, the present study summarizes current models of aesthetic surgery training and assesses RRCs as an adjunct to aesthetics education within the framework of competency-based medical education. Explored themes include advantages and issues of RRCs including surgical autonomy, feasibility, exposure, learners’ perception, ethics, and quality improvement. In addition, attention is focused on their role in cognitive competency acquisition and exposure to non-surgical techniques. RRCs are considered an effective educational model that provides an autonomous learning platform with reasonable patient satisfaction and safety profiles.

The Role of a Resident Aesthetic Clinic in Addressing the Trainee Autonomy Gap

BACKGROUND

Our institution supports a chief resident aesthetic clinic with the goal of fostering autonomy and preparedness for independent practice in a safe environment.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare safety profiles and costs for common aesthetic procedures performed in our resident versus attending clinics.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all subjects presenting for aesthetic face, breast, and/or abdominal contouring surgery at our institution from 2008 to 2017. Two cohorts were identified: subjects undergoing surgery through the chief resident versus attending clinics. Aesthetic procedures queried included: (1) blepharoplasty, rhinoplasty, or rhytidectomy; (2) augmentation mammaplasty, reduction mammaplasty, or mastopexy; (3) abdominoplasty; and (4) combination. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, costs, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 262 and 238 subjects underwent aesthetic procedures in the resident and attending clinics, respectively. Subjects presenting to the residents were younger (P < 0.001), lower income (P < 0.001), and had fewer comorbidities (P < 0.001). Length of procedure differed between resident and attending cohorts at 181 and 152 minutes, respectively (P < 0.001), although hospital costs were not significantly increased. Total costs were higher in the attending cohort independent of aesthetic procedure (P < 0.001). Hospital readmissions (P < 0.05) and cosmetic revisions (P < 0.002) were more likely to occur in the attending physician cohort. Postoperative complications (P < 0.50) and reoperative rates (P < 0.39) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The resident aesthetic clinic provides a mechanism for increased autonomy and decision-making, while maintaining patient safety in commonly performed cosmetic procedures.

Graduate perception of cosmetic surgery training in plastic surgery residency and fellowship programs

BACKGROUND

As the demand for cosmetic surgery continues to rise, plastic surgery programs and the training core curriculum have evolved to reflect these changes. This study aims to evaluate the perceived quality of current cosmetic surgery training in terms of case exposure and educational methods.

METHODS

A 16-question survey was sent to graduates who completed their training at a U.S. plastic surgery training program in 2017. The survey assessed graduates' exposure to cosmetic surgery, teaching modalities employed and their overall perceived competence. Case complexity was characterized by the minimum number of cases needed by the graduate to feel confident in performing the procedure.

RESULTS

There was a 25% response rate. The majority of respondents were residents (83%, n=92) and the remaining were fellows (17%, n=18). Almost three quarters of respondents were satisfied with their cosmetic training. Respondents rated virtual training as the most effective learning modality and observing attendings' patients/cases as least effective. Perceived competence was more closely aligned with core curriculum status than case complexity, i.e. graduates feel more prepared for core cosmetic procedures despite being more technically difficult than non-core procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the variability in cosmetic exposure during training, most plastic surgery graduates are satisfied with their aesthetic training. Incorporation of teaching modalities, such as virtual training, can increase case exposure and allow trainees more autonomy. The recommended core curriculum is adequately training plastic surgery graduates for common procedures and more specialized procedures should be consigned to aesthetic fellowship training.

Facelift Part I: History, Anatomy, and Clinical Assessment

In this article, the authors aim to thoroughly describe the critical surgical anatomy of the facial layers, the retaining ligamentous attachments of the face, and the complex three-dimensional course of the pertinent nerves. This is supplemented with clarifying anatomic dissections and artwork figures whenever possible to enable easy, sound, and safe navigation during surgery. The historic milestones that led the evolution of cervicofacial rejuvenation to the art we know today are summarized at the beginning, and the pearls of the relevant facial analysis that permit accurate clinical judgment and hence individualized treatment strategies are highlighted at the end. The facelift operation remains the cornerstone of face and neck rejuvenation. Despite the emergence of numerous less invasive modalities, surgery continues to be the most powerful and more durable technique to modify facial appearance. All other procedures designed to ameliorate facial aging are either built around or serve as adjuncts to this formidable craft.

Impact of Residents on Operative Time in Aesthetic Surgery at an Academic Institution

Background

Duration of surgery is a known risk factor for increased complication rates. Longer operations may lead to increased cost to the patient and institution. While previous studies have looked at the safety of aesthetic surgery with resident involvement, little research has examined whether resident involvement increases operative time of aesthetic procedures.

Objectives

We hypothesized that resident involvement would potentially lead to an increase in operative time as attending physicians teach trainees during aesthetic operations.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed from aesthetic surgery cases of two surgeons at an academic institution over a 4-year period. Breast augmentation and abdominoplasty with liposuction were examined as index cases for this study. Demographics, operative time, and resident involvement were assessed. Resident involvement was defined as participating in critical portions of the cases including exposure, dissection, and closure.

Results

A total of 180 cases fit the inclusion criteria with 105 breast augmentation cases and 75 cases of abdominoplasty with liposuction. Patient demographics were similar for both procedures. Resident involvement did not statistically affect operative duration in breast augmentation (41.8 ± 9.6 min vs 44.7 ± 12.4 min, P = 0.103) or cases for abdominoplasty with liposuction (107.3 ± 20.5 min vs 122.2 ± 36.3 min, P = 0.105).

Conclusions

There was a trend toward longer operative times that did not reach statistical significance with resident involvement in two aesthetic surgery cases at an academic institution. This study adds to the growing literature on the effect resident training has in aesthetic surgery.

Level of Evidence: 2

Review of the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme for oral and maxillofacial surgery aesthetics: are we underselling ourselves?

Aesthetic facial surgery is considered to be within the remit of the maxillofacial surgeon but this is not reflected currently in the trainees' curriculum. In contrast, the plastic surgery curriculum demands detailed training in facial aesthetics. In this paper we have compared the UK OMFS, plastics, and otolaryngology curricula, and used the feedback of trainees to suggest a new aesthetics curriculum. Our method was based on the first three steps of Kern's 1998 six-step model of curricula development: identification of problems, assessment of need, and goals or objectives. The cosmetic certification criterion of the Royal College of Surgeons was used as a baseline for comparison. There was huge variation in the detail and specification of the three specialties' curricula: plastics covered 11/11 of the assessed procedures, while OMFS and otolaryngology covered 7/11 And 4/11, respectively. A total of 45 trainees provided feedback and there was an overall consensus that more training in aesthetics would be beneficial, though accessibility to resources would be an issue. With input from the BAOMS aesthetics lead, our ambitious curriculum increases the number of logbooks to reflect our expertise in the head and neck. It also broadens the span of training over all years of specialist training and, most importantly, relaxes the criteria for transferrable skills. Embracing aesthetics as part of the core curriculum will be beneficial for the future of OMFS, and will produce more rounded surgeons at the end of training. Even the most optimistic observers cannot ignore the financial and logistical setbacks that will have to be faced to achieve this, but we hope that this paper will stimulate a discussion.

A Systematic Review of Resident Aesthetic Clinic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Providing residents with comprehensive training in aesthetic surgery has proven challenging. Resident aesthetic clinics propose an educational value to trainees while providing successful patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study systematically reviewed the available literature regarding resident aesthetic clinic outcomes to determine the efficacy of the clinic in resident training, surgical results, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed to identify literature reporting on resident aesthetic clinics. Studies were excluded if the resident clinic was not aesthetic in nature, if only nonsurgical aesthetic procedures were performed, and if clinic outcomes were not evaluated. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies.

RESULTS

Ten of 148 identified studies met inclusion criteria; 2 utilized a survey, 3 were retrospective cohort studies, and 5 were retrospective cohort studies also utilizing a survey. Clinic schedules, surgical case volume, and surgical procedures performed all varied. One study received a Newcastle Ottawa Scale score of 7 of a possible 9 stars, 2 studies received 5 stars, 5 studies received 4 stars, and 2 could not be assessed using the scoring system. Six studies analyzed surgical results as a primary outcome, reporting acceptable complication and revision rates. Four studies evaluated patient opinions of the clinics and reported overall high satisfaction rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that resident aesthetic clinics enhance resident education while providing safe and successful surgical results to patients.

Evaluating Patient Outcomes in Breast and Abdominal Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Procedures Involving Residents

BACKGROUND

Hands-on training and exposure to cosmetic surgery is an integral part of plastic surgery residency. However, resident participation in cosmetic surgical cases is often limited in many training programs. Furthermore, the effect of resident participation in cosmetic surgery is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of resident involvement on outcomes in cosmetic plastic surgery procedures, with a focus on breast and abdominal surgeries.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was performed to identify all patients undergoing cosmetic breast and abdominal surgical procedures by plastic surgeons over a 4-year period (2009-2012). Multivariate regression models were constructed to determine any association between resident participation and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 6982 patients were included in the analysis. Cases with resident involvement had higher rates of superficial surgical site infection (P < 0.0001), wound dehiscence (P = 0.014), and an increase in mean length of hospital stay (P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the increased rate of superficial surgical site infection was associated with a higher body mass index and with the involvement of a resident during the surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides further evidence to support the claim that resident involvement in cosmetic surgery is safe, with little effect on the rates of major complications. Any increase in minor complication rates must be critically analyzed with respect to the valuable surgical experience gathered by the next generation of surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Longitudinal Assessment of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Training in the United States: The Effect of Increased ACGME Case Log Minimum Requirements

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) increased the minimum required aesthetic surgery cases for graduation from plastic surgery residency from 50 to 150. To date, there has been no research into how this has impacted resident aesthetic surgery training focusing on the resident perception.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate resident perception and satisfaction with their aesthetic surgery training before and after the ACGME case log requirement increase to assess its impact on training and comfort level.

METHODS

A survey was administered to all graduating senior residents attending the Senior Residents Conference of the ASPS Annual Meeting in 2014 and 2017. The survey evaluated senior resident aesthetic surgery experience and their confidence and satisfaction with their training.

RESULTS

The response rate was 70% in 2014 and 45% in 2017. There was an increase in the number of programs with resident-run cosmetic clinics (14% increase) and designated aesthetic rotations (33% increase) during that time. Resident-run cosmetic clinics were consistently considered the most valuable form of aesthetic training for residents. There also was a substantial increase in the percentage of residents feeling prepared to incorporate aesthetic surgery into their practice after graduation, increasing from 36% to 59% in 2017. The majority of responding residents felt that the ACGME case log requirement increase in 2014 was beneficial for their aesthetic surgery training (68%).

CONCLUSIONS

The recent ACGME case log requirement increase for aesthetic surgery training has had a positive effect on resident comfort with aesthetic procedures and their ability to incorporate them into future practice.

Assessing the Value of a Multimedia-Based Aesthetic Curriculum in Plastic Surgery Residency: A Single-Center Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Although global demand for cosmetic surgery continues to rise, plastic surgery residents feel that current models of aesthetic training are inadequate in preparing them for future practice. Digital learning resources offer promising educational possibilities, yet there are no formal studies investigating the integration of these technologies into the aesthetic curriculum.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we review the current state of aesthetic training for plastic surgery residents and present a pilot study investigating the value of a dedicated multimedia-based aesthetic curriculum at a single, large academic program.

METHODS

Twenty plastic surgery residents participated in an 8-week curriculum consisting of weekly multimedia-based modules covering a specific aesthetic topic. Participants completed pre- and post-intervention surveys at 0 and 10 weeks, respectively. Surveys evaluated resident perspectives of the current state of aesthetic training, confidence in performing surgical and non-surgical aesthetic procedures, perceived efficacy of multimedia interventions for learning, and preferences for inclusion of such approaches in future curricula.

RESULTS

16.7% of participants planned on entering an aesthetic fellowship following residency. The mean number of months of dedicated cosmetic surgery rotations was 1.65 months. Resident confidence level in performing a particular aesthetic procedure significantly increased in 6/14 modules. More than 90% of residents were interested in incorporating the modules into residency.

CONCLUSIONS

Technology-based aesthetic training is critical for producing the finest future practitioners and leaders of this specialty. Here, we show that plastic surgery residents can benefit from a multimedia-based aesthetic curriculum, even if they do not plan on pursuing a career devoted to cosmetic surgery.

Simulation: An Effective Method of Teaching Cosmetic Botulinum Toxin Injection Technique

BACKGROUND

Learning to inject botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes is difficult for beginners, given the nature of the procedure and patient population. Simulation training is an effective modality for medical professionals to acquire skills in an environment that provides low stress and ample opportunity for questions and correction of mistakes.

OBJECTIVES

Compare posttraining comfort, knowledge, and practical botulinum toxin injection scores among trainees who underwent simulation vs video training only.

METHODS

A total of 20 nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and resident physicians underwent cosmetic botulinum toxin injection training either through lecture and video, or lecture and hands-on simulation training. Comfort, knowledge, and practical test scores were recorded and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in comfort or knowledge scores between simulation and video groups. The median (range) practical score was significantly higher in the simulation group compared to the video group (59.0 [31-60] vs 44.5 [27-57]; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite feeling similarly comfortable and having similar written knowledge test scores, the trainees who underwent simulation training had significantly higher hands-on practical test scores compared to trainees who underwent video training only for cosmetic botulinum toxin injections.

Plastic Surgery Resident-Run Cosmetic Clinics: A Survey of Current Practices

BACKGROUND

The recently increased minimum aesthetic surgery requirements set by the Plastic Surgery Residency Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education highlight the importance of aesthetic surgery training for plastic surgery residents. Participation in resident aesthetic surgery clinics has become an important tool to achieve this goal. Yet, there is little literature on the current structure of these clinics.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate current practices of aesthetic resident-run clinics in the United States.

METHODS

A survey examining specific aspects of chief resident clinics was distributed to 70 plastic surgery resident program directors in the United States. Thirty-five questions sought to delineate clinic structure, procedures and services offered, financial cost to the patient, and satisfaction and educational benefit derived from the experience.

RESULTS

Fifty-two questionnaires were returned, representing 74.2% of programs surveyed. Thirty-two (63%) reported having a dedicated resident aesthetic surgery clinic at their institution. The most common procedures performed were abdominoplasty (n = 20), breast augmentation (n = 19), and liposuction (n = 16). Most clinics offered neuromodulators (n = 29) and injectable fillers (n = 29). The most common billing method used was a 50% discount on surgeon fee, with the patient being responsible for the entirety of hospital and anesthesia fees. Twenty-six respondents reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied with their resident aesthetic clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found aesthetic chief resident clinics to differ greatly in their structure. Yet the variety of procedures and services offered makes participation in these clinics an effective training method for the development of both aesthetic surgical technique and resident autonomy.

Aesthetic Training for Plastic Surgeons: Are Residents Getting Enough?

Plastic Surgery is one of the most competitive specialties in the field of medicine. However, this specialty has a unique particularity: the difficulties in Aesthetic Surgery training within the residency program. Despite the fact that the full title of the specialty is Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery and that Aesthetic Surgery is a part of the examination syllabus, the actual training in the specific area is limited. One of the solutions to this problem is Fellowships. The first author describes his personal experience with Aesthetic training and how it enhanced his knowledge in the area as well as the status of Fellowships in various training programs.

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.