Are we training oral and maxillofacial surgeons in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures?

OBJECTIVE: Oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMS) are well trained in facial anatomy, but exposure to cosmetic procedures in residencies is inconsistent due to several factors, including the patient population, technique, and cost. The primary objective of the present study was to identify an association with exposure to treatment modality in residency with likelihood to perform these procedures in practice. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey distributed to practicing OMS in the United States. Links to the online survey were distributed using communications from local, state, and regional OMS surgery societies. Information was gathered on clinical practice and training during and after residency. The study outcome was whether the respondent performed injectables (dermal fillers or neuromodulators) in their practice. RESULTS: A total of 150 responses were included in the study sample, and no responses were excluded. Only 42.7% of respondents reported performing injectables. Just 37% of respondents stated they had had an opportunity to perform these procedures as a resident, suggesting that 5.7% did not perform injectables until they started practice. Dual-degree training, additional fellowship training, and practical and didactic continuing education training were all associated with higher likelihoods of having an injectable practice. Injectable exposure in residency did not significantly affect the prevalence of having an injectable practice. CONCLUSIONS: OMS who performed injectables were more likely to seek additional forms of training outside of residency. Educators should reevaluate the way that they are approaching cosmetics procedures in residency.

The Past Decade in Courts, What Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery Should Know About Facial Cosmetic Surgery.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to examine medical malpractice in facial cosmetic surgery procedures to characterize factors that determine legal liability and help make the oral-maxillofacial surgeon (OMS) more comfortable with treating this patient population. METHODS: The Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge is a subscription-based legal database that contains decisional law and other data from a variety of state and federal court records. The database was queried for medical malpractice cases involving facial surgical cosmetic procedures from 2010 to 2020. RESULTS: A total of 763 malpractice cases were identified through the search. After removing duplicates, 758 malpractice cases were hand reviewed based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 55 cases met criteria for inclusion. Verdict decisions and settlements occurred in the years of 2010 to 2019. Of those 55 cases, the highest concentration of cases occurred in New York (14), California (10) and Pennsylvania (6). Seventy-four percent of the verdicts were in favor of the defendant, 4% of cases settled and 22% of cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff. The minimum award of damages was $8,597.71 with the maximum of $4,150,000.00 (mean: $72,1915.69 ± $1,131,245.94). The provider's primary specialty was most often plastic and reconstructive surgery (84%), followed by ophthalmology (7%), dermatology (3%) and ENT (4%). CONCLUSION: While it is comforting to know that 74% of malpractice cases in the last decade were found in favor of the surgeon, it is important to realize how devastating the litigation experience can be for a medical practitioner. The best defense to a malpractice case is to avoid one altogether. Learning from past mistakes is one way of ensuring that goal.

A 20-Year Analysis of Adverse Events and Litigation With Light-Based Skin Resurfacing Procedures.

PURPOSE: The popularity and availability of facial rejuvenation procedures have increased exponentially during the previous decade. The present study aimed to provide an overview of photorejuvenation and evaluate the complications and litigation related to light-based skin resurfacing procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) registry and the Thomson Reuter Westlaw Edge database from May 1, 1999 to May 1, 2019. The MAUDE registry was queried using the manufacturer brands. Adverse events were individually reviewed, and data were gathered regarding the company, complication, body location, and device type. The litigation cases were individually reviewed, and information was gathered on plaintiff gender, defendant specialty, allegation, jury verdict, the appeals verdict, and the award amount, if applicable. RESULTS: A total of 697 adverse events were included in the final sample. The most commonly reported complications were burns (61.1%), followed by scarring (16.2%), hyperpigmentation (7.8%), and hypopigmentation (7.0%). More rare, noncosmetic complications included infection (3.9%) and nerve (1.4%) and ocular (1.3%) damage. The rates of scarring with facial treatments were greater (24.3 vs 10.3%; P < .01) and the rates of burns with ablative lasers were lower (25.9 vs 66.0%; P < .01). With respect to litigation, of the 9 cases identified, all the plaintiffs were women. The most common allegation was procedural negligence (88.8%), followed by cosmetic deformity (77.7%) and the lack of informed consent (55.5%). The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff in 4 cases (44.4%), and the mean award was $656,000. CONCLUSIONS: The most common adverse events were burns, scars, and pigmentation changes. Patient expectations could play a role in the reporting of adverse events. Negligence was the most common basis for litigation, consistent with what has been reported for other procedures. Future studies should evaluate whether increasing exposure to cosmetic phototherapies during residency and fellowship training will reduce future complication rates and alleged malpractice.