Perceptions of Preparedness in Plastic Surgery Residency Training

Comparing Graduating Plastic Surgery Residents' Case Logs With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Requirements, Content at National Meetings, and In-Service Examination Test Items

BACKGROUND

The importance of adaptable and up-to-date plastic surgery graduate medical education (GME) has taken on new meaning amidst accelerating surgical innovation and increasing calls for competency-based training standards. We aimed to examine the extent to which the procedures plastic surgery residents perform, as represented in case log data, align with 2 core standardized components of plastic surgery GME: ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) minimum procedure count requirements and the PSITE (Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Examination). We also examined their alignment with procedural representation at 2 major plastic surgery meetings.

METHODS

Nine categories of reconstructive and aesthetic procedures were identified. Three-year averages for the number of procedures completed in each category by residents graduating in 2019-2021 were calculated from ACGME national case log data reports. The ACGME procedure count minimum requirements were also ascertained. The titles and durations of medical programming sessions scheduled for Plastic Surgery The Meeting (PSTM) 2022 and the Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC) Annual Meeting 2022 were retrieved from online data. Finally, test items from the 2020 to 2022 administrations of the PSITE were retrieved. Conference sessions and test items were assigned to a single procedure category when possible. Percent differences were calculated for comparison.

RESULTS

The distribution of procedures on plastic surgery resident case logs differs from those of the major mechanisms of standardization in plastic surgery GME, in-service examination content more so than ACGME requirements. Meeting content at PSTM and PSRC had the largest percent differences with case log data, with PSTM being skewed toward aesthetics and PSRC toward reconstructive head and neck surgery.

DISCUSSION

The criteria and standards by which plastic surgery residents are evaluated and content at national meetings differ from the procedures they actually complete during their training. Although largely reflecting heterogeneity of the specialty, following these comparisons will likely prove useful in the continual evaluation of plastic surgery residency training, especially in the preparation of residents for the variety of training and practice settings they pursue.

Exploring Trends in Immediate Postresidency Career Paths: A Multi-year Analysis of Plastic Surgery Resident Graduates Across the United States

Background

Plastic surgery is one of the most diverse specialties in medicine. Because of the competitiveness of plastic surgery residency, applicants are entering the field with increased experience and more developed interests in specific specialties. Programs and prospective applicants may find it beneficial to know trends in the career paths of recent graduates.

Objectives

To identify trends in postresidency career paths for plastic surgery graduates.

Methods

Data from all integrated plastic surgery residency programs were analyzed from 2013 to 2022. Eighty-eight residency programs were analyzed for review. Residency websites were the primary source of data. Postresidency career paths were categorized into subspecialty fellowships, academic practice, or private practice. Secondary data included program rank, size of the program, associated fellowship program, associated independent program, and program location.

Results

Seventy-three programs met the inclusion criteria. Private practice was the most common immediate postgraduation path. Microvascular and aesthetic fellowships demonstrated maximum growth in the last 10 years, followed by hand fellowships. Programs ranked in the top 25 by Doximity reputation were significantly associated with graduates going into craniofacial (P = .05) and microvascular fellowship (P = .021), and immediate academic practice (P = .011). Lower-ranked programs were correlated with higher levels of graduates entering directly into private/community hospital practice (ρ = 0.327).

Conclusions

Life after residency is a necessary consideration for training physicians. Understanding trends in postresidency career paths could help programs and prospective applicants make more informed decisions on what programs may offer the best opportunities to pursue their desired career path.

Level of Evidence 5

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

Interest of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Towards Specialised Training in Facial Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery in India - An Evaluative Study

Introduction

The Dental Council of India has included facial plastic surgery in the scope of practice of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (OMFSs) in India. However, the knowledge and interests of these specialists towards facial plastic surgery are unexplored.

Materials and Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study consisting of a structured questionnaire tool with six domains and 46 questions was circulated amongst registered OMFSs in India. The study consisted of 950 participants. The data obtained from this questionnaire were coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and a descriptive analysis was conducted.

Results

The study yielded that only 33% of the participants were completely aware of facial fillers and 30.5% were aware of Botox procedure. However, there was complete awareness of blepharoplasty in 42%, cheiloplasty/palatoplasty in 65.8%, laser facial resurfacing in 23.7% and facial rejuvenation in 23.5% of the participants.

Discussion

It was found that a high number of OMFSs felt that their exposure to plastic surgery during their post-graduation years was not sufficient.

Changes in Subspecialty Interest of Plastic Surgery Residents With Progression of Training: Impact on Academic Attrition

BACKGROUND

Plastic surgery residency applicants often express interest in academic subspecialties, but only a small percentage of graduating residents pursue academic careers. Identifying reasons for academic attrition may help training programs address this discrepancy.

METHODS

A survey was sent to plastic surgery residents through the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Resident Council to assess interest in 6 plastic surgery subspecialties during junior and senior years of training. If a resident changed their subspecialty interest, the reasons for change were recorded. The importance of different career incentives over time were analyzed with paired t tests.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-six plastic surgery residents of 593 potential respondents (46.5% response rate) completed the survey. Of 150 senior residents, 60 residents reported changing interests from their junior to senior years. Craniofacial and microsurgery were identified as the specialties with the highest attrition of interest, while interest in esthetic, gender-affirmation, and hand surgery increased. For residents who left craniofacial and microsurgery, the desire for higher compensation, to work in private practice, and the desire for improved job opportunities significantly increased. The desire for improved work/life balance was a prominent reason for subspecialty change among senior residents who changed to esthetic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic surgery subspecialties associated with academia, such as craniofacial surgery, suffer from resident attrition due to a variety of factors. Increased retention of trainees in craniofacial surgery, microsurgery, and academia could be improved through dedicated mentorship, improved job opportunities, and advocacy for fair reimbursement.

COVID-19 Did Not Stop the Rising Tide: Trends in Case Volume Logged by Surgical Residents

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus pandemic has profoundly impacted all facets of surgical care, including surgical residency training. The objective of this study was to assess the operative experience and overall case volume of surgery residents before and during the pandemic.

METHODS

Using data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education annual operative log reports, operative volume for 2015 to 2021 graduates of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education -accredited general, orthopedic, neuro- and plastic surgery residency programs was analyzed using nonparametric Kendall-tau correlation analysis. The period before the pandemic was defined as AY14-15 to AY18-19, and the pandemic period was defined as AY19-20 to AY20-21.

RESULTS

Operative data for 8556 general, 5113 orthopedic, 736 plastic, and 1278 neurosurgery residency graduates were included. Between 2015 and 2021, total case volume increased significantly for general surgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 0.905, p = 0.007), orthopedic surgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 1.000, p = 0.003), neurosurgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 0.905, p = 0.007), and plastic surgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 0.810, p = 0.016). Across all specialties, the mean total number of cases performed by residents graduating during the pandemic was higher than among residents graduating before the pandemic, though no formal significance testing was performed. Among general surgery residents, the number of cases performed as surgeon chief among residents graduating in AY19-20 decreased for the first time in 5 years, though the overall volume remained higher than the prior year, and returned to prepandemic trends in AY20-21.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 7 years, the case volume of surgical residents steadily increased. Surgical trainees who graduated during the coronavirus pandemic have equal or greater total operative experience compared to trainees who graduated prior to the pandemic.

Declining Resident Surgical Autonomy and Improving Surgical Outcomes: Correlation Does Not Equal Causality

OBJECTIVE

The volume of cases that residents perform independently have decreased leaving graduating chief residents less prepared for independent practice. Outcomes are not worse when residents are given autonomy with appropriate supervision, however it is unknown if outcomes are worsening with decreasing operative autonomy experience. We hypothesize that resident autonomous cases parallel the improving outcomes in surgical care over time, however, are less complex and on lower acuity patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective study utilizing the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database.

SETTING

Operative cases performed on teaching services within the VASQIP database from July 1, 2004 to September 30, 2019, were included.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult patients who underwent a surgical procedure from July 1, 2004, to September 30, 2019, at a VA hospital on a service that included residents were initially included. After inclusions and exclusions, there were 1,346,461 cases. Cases were divided into 3 sequential 5 year eras (ERA 1: 2004-2008 n = 415,614, ERA 2: 2009-2013 n = 478,528, and ERA 3: 2014-2019 n = 452,319). The main exposure of interest was level of resident supervision, coded at the time of procedure as: attending primary surgeon (AP); attending and resident (AR), or resident primary with the attending supervising but not scrubbed (RP). We compared 30 day all-cause mortality, composite morbidity, work relative value unit (wRVU), hospital length of stay, and operative time between each ERA for RP cases, as well as within each ERA for RP cases compared to AR and AP cases.

RESULTS

There was a progressive decline in the rate of RP cases in each successive ERA (ERA 1: 58,249 (14.0%) vs ERA 2: 47,891 (10.0%) vs ERA 3: 35,352 (7.8%), p < 0.001). For RP cases, patients were progressively getting older (60 yrs [53-71] vs 63 yrs [54-69] vs 66 yrs [57-72], p < 0.001) and sicker (ASA 3 58.7% vs 62.5% vs 66.2% and ASA 4/5 8.4% vs 9.6% vs10.0%, p < 0.001). Odds of mortality decreased in each ERA compared to the previous (aOR 0.71 [0.62-0.80] ERA 2 vs ERA 1 and 0.82 [0.70-0.97] ERA 3 vs ERA 2) as did morbidity (0.77 [0.73-0.82] ERA 2 vs ERA 1 and 0.72 [0.68-0.77] ERA 3 vs ERA 2). Operative and length of stay also decreased while wRVU stayed unchanged. When comparing RP cases to AP and AR within each ERA, RP cases tended to be on younger and healthier patients with a lower wRVU, particularly compared to AR cases. Mortality and morbidity were no different or better in RP compared to AR and AP.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite resident autonomy decreasing, outcomes in cases where they are afforded autonomy are improving over time. This despite RP cases being on sicker and older patients and performing roughly the same complexity of cases. They also continue to perform no worse than cases with higher levels of supervision. Efforts to increase surgical resident operative autonomy are still needed to improve readiness for independent practice.

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.

Leadership Roles, Academic Appointments, and Scholarly Activity—Does a Fellowship after Plastic Surgery Training Make a Difference?

Background  Fellowship training is becoming more popular in plastic surgery, with over half of residents pursuing advanced training. Here, we investigate how clinical and research fellowship training impacts career trajectory and scholastic achievement in academic plastic surgery.

Methods  Plastic surgery faculty members, from programs recognized by the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons, were identified using institutional Web sites. Data extracted included faculty demographics, training history, academic positions, and research productivity. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using t -tests and chi-square, respectively.

Results  In total, 949 faculty members were included, with 657 (69%) having completed fellowship training. Integrated program residents were more likely to complete a fellowship when compared with independent residents ( p  < 0.0001). Fellowship trained faculty were more likely to have graduated from a higher ranked residency program, in terms of both overall and research reputation ( p  = 0.005 and p  = 0.016, respectively). When controlling for years in practice, there was no difference found in number of publications, Hirsch index (h-index), or National Institutes of Health funding between faculty between the two cohorts ( p  > 0.05). In a subanalysis comparing hand, craniofacial, microsurgery, and research fellowships, those who completed a research fellowship had higher h-indices and were more likely to reach full professor status ( p  < 0.001 and p  = 0.001, respectively). Fellowship training had no effect on being promoted to Chief/Chair of departments ( p  = 0.16).

Conclusion  Fellowship training is common among academic plastic surgeons. In this study, both clinical and research fellowships were associated with various aspects of academic success. However, fellowship training alone did not affect attainment of leadership positions.

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 .