A Multi-institutional Analysis of a Textbook Outcome Among Patients Undergoing Microvascular Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Individual outcomes may not accurately reflect the quality of perioperative care. Textbook outcomes (TOs) are composite metrics that provide a comprehensive evaluation of hospital performance and surgical quality. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of TOs in a multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps. METHODS: For autologous reconstruction, a TO was previously defined as a procedure without intraoperative complications, reoperation, infection requiring intravenous antibiotics, readmission, mortality, systemic complications, operative duration ≤12 hours for bilateral and ≤10 hours for unilateral/stacked reconstruction, and length of stay (LOS) ≤5 days. We investigated associations between patient-level factors and achieving a TO using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 1000 patients, most (73.2%) met a TO. The most common reasons for deviation from a TO were reoperation (9.6%), prolonged operative time (9.5%), and prolonged LOS (9.2%). On univariate analysis, tobacco use, obesity, widowed/divorced marital status, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy or bilateral reconstruction were associated with a lower likelihood of TOs (P < 0.05). After adjustment, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (odds ratio [OR], 5.71; P = 0.029) and hormonal therapy (OR, 1.53; P = 0.050) were associated with a higher likelihood of TOs; higher body mass index (OR, 0.91; P = <0.001) was associated with a lower likelihood. CONCLUSION: Approximately 30% of patients did not achieve a TO, and the likelihood of achieving a TO was influenced by patient and procedural factors. Future studies should investigate how this metric may be used to evaluate patient and hospital-level performance to improve the quality of care in reconstructive surgery.

Identifying Barriers Faced by Applicants without a Home Residency Program when Matching into Plastic Surgery.

Background Applying into plastic surgery (PS) is competitive. Lacking a home residency program (HRP) is another barrier. Our goal is to characterize challenges faced by PS applicants without HRPs and identify solutions. Methods Surveys were designed for current integrated PS residents and applicants in the 2022 Match without HRPs. Surveys were distributed electronically. Only U.S. allopathic graduate responses were included. Results Of 182 individuals surveyed, 74 responded (39%, 33 residents, 41 applicants). Sixty-six percent reported feeling disadvantaged due to lack of an HRP. Seventy-six percent of applicants successfully matched. Of these, 48% felt they required academic time off (research year) versus 10% of unmatched applicants. Ninety-seven percent of matched applicants identified a mentor versus 40% of unmatched applicants ( p < 0.05). Matched applicants identified mentors through research (29%) and cold calling/emailing (25%). Matched versus unmatched applicants utilized the following resources: senior students (74 vs. 10%, p < 0.05) and social media (52 vs. 10%, p < 0.05). Among residents, 16 had PS divisions (48%). Thirty-six percent with divisions felt they had opportunities to explore PS, compared with 12% without divisions. Residents without divisions felt disadvantaged in finding research (94 vs. 65%, p < 0.05), delayed in deciding on PS (50 vs. 28%), and obtaining mentors (44 vs. 35%) and letters of recommendation (31 vs. 24%). Conclusion PS residents and applicants without HRPs reported feeling disadvantaged when matching. The data suggest that access to departments or divisions assists in matching. We identified that external outreach and research were successful strategies to obtain mentorship. To increase awareness for unaffiliated applicants, we should increase networking opportunities during local, regional, and national meetings.

Preference Signaling and the Integrated Plastic Surgery Match: A National Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: Rooted in economics market strategies, preference signaling was introduced to the Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) in 2022 for integrated plastic surgery residency applicants. This study surveyed program and applicant experience with preference signaling and assessed how preference signals influenced likelihood of interview invitations. DESIGN: Two online surveys were designed and distributed to all program directors and 2022-2023 applicants to integrated plastic surgery. Opinions regarding the utility of preference signaling were solicited, and the influence of preference signals on likelihood of interview offers was assessed. SETTING: All integrated plastic surgery programs. PARTICIPANTS: All 88 program directors and 2022-2023 applicants to integrated plastic surgery. RESULTS: A total of 45 programs and 99 applicants completed the survey (response rates, 54.2% and 34.2%, respectively). Overall, 79.6% of applicants and 68.9% of programs reported that preference signals were a useful addition to the application cycle. Programs reported that 41.4% of students who sent preference signals received interview offers, compared to 84.6% of home students, 64.8% of away rotators, and 7.1% of other applicants; overall, students who signaled were 5.8 times more likely to receive an interview offer compared to students who were not home students and did not rotate or signal. After multivariable adjustment, programs with higher Doximity rankings, numbers of away rotators, and numbers of integrated residents per year received more preference signals (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Applicants and programs report that preference signaling was a useful addition to the integrated plastic surgery application cycle. Sending preference signals resulted in a higher likelihood of interview offers among nonrotators. Preference signaling may be a useful tool to reduce congestion in the integrated plastic surgery application cycle.

Machine learning analysis of online patient questions regarding breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Social media has become a dominant educational resource for breast reconstruction patients. Rather than passively consuming information, patients interact directly with other users and healthcare professionals. While online information for breast reconstruction has been analyzed previously, a robust analysis of patient questions on online forums has not been conducted. In this study, the authors used a machine learning approach to analyze and categorize online patient questions regarding breast reconstruction. METHODS: Realself.com was accessed and questions pertaining to breast reconstruction were extracted. Data collected included the date of question, poster's location, question header, question text, and available tags. Questions were analyzed and categorized by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: 522 preoperative questions were analyzed. Geographic analysis is displayed in Figure 1. Questions were often asked in the pre-mastectomy period (38.3%); however, patients with tissue expanders currently in place made up 28.5%. Questions were often related to reconstructive methods (23.2%), implant selection (19.5%), and tissue expander concerns (16.7%). Questions asked in the post-lumpectomy period were significantly more likely to be related to insurance/cost and reconstructive candidacy (p < 0.01). The "Top 6″ patient questions were determined by machine learning analysis, and the most common of which was "Can I get good results going direct to implant after mastectomy?" CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of online questions provides valuable insights and may help inform our educational approach toward our breast reconstruction patients. Our findings suggest that questions are common throughout the reconstructive process and do not end after the initial consultation. Patients most often want more information on the reconstructive options, implant selection, and the tissue expansion process.

Flipping Tradition on Its Head: A Single-Institution Study on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step Order.

Given the recent change in Step 1 grading, medical students are faced with decisions surrounding the optimal Step examination order and timing. There is a current lack of guidance outside commonly used United States Medical Licensing Examination study blogs. The aim of this study was to characterize current practices in Step examination order and understand the factors influencing student examination preference. To gather data, we used a 24-item survey and electronically distributed it through three separate email requests to medical students. Participants included medical students (MS1-4) attending a single institution, interested in a surgical residency. In total, 56 students responded to the survey (response rate of 20%). Most students (63.6%) opted to take Step 2 before Step 1. Justifications included the perceived importance of Step 2 for residency applications (33.3%), the change to pass/fail grading (27.0%), the relevance of Step 2 after rotations (27.0%), and a desire to obtain a Step 2 score earlier (7.9%). Step examination order did not lead to differences in Step 2 score (P = 0.459), time used to prepare for Step 1 (P = 0.396), or time used to prepare for Step 2 (P = 0.078). Due to the perceived importance of Step 2, most medical students at our institution who are interested in pursuing a surgical residency are reversing the traditional Step examination order. As this may represent a national trend, additional work needs to be done to provide guidance to medical students and identify the optimal step examination testing strategy.

Assessment of Microsurgery Simulation Course Access in Plastic Surgery Training Programs.

BACKGROUND: Microsurgery requires complex skill development with a steep learning curve for plastic surgery trainees. Flap dissection courses and simulation exercises are useful to acquire these skills. This study aims to assess plastic surgery training programs' access to and interest in microsurgical courses. METHODS: A survey was distributed to plastic surgery residency and microsurgery fellowship program directors (PDs). The survey collected program demographics and attendance of trainees at structured microsurgical skills or flap dissection courses. We assessed if PDs thought trainees would benefit from instructional courses. RESULTS: There were 44 residency PD responses (44/105, 41.9%, 36 integrated, 8 independent), and 16 fellowship PD responses (16/42, 38.1%). For residency PDs, 54.5% (24/44) sent residents to flap courses, and 95% (19/20) of remaining PDs felt residents would benefit from attending. In addition, 59.1% of programs (26/44) sent residents to microsurgical skills courses, and 83.3% (15/18) of remaining PDs felt residents would benefit from attending. When examining fellowship PDs, 31.2% of programs (5/16) sent fellows to flap dissection courses and 10/11 of remaining PDs felt fellows would benefit from attending a course (90.1%). Half of programs (8/16) sent fellows to microsurgical skills courses, and 7/8 remaining PDs felt fellows would benefit from attending (87.5%). CONCLUSION: Only half of the plastic surgery trainees have access to microsurgical skills and flap dissection courses. The majority of residency and fellowship PDs feel that training courses are valuable. Expanding access to these courses could provide a significant benefit to microsurgical education in plastic surgery training.

Educational Podcasts in Plastic Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Content, Metrics, and Target Audiences.

BACKGROUND: Podcasts provide an efficient means for asynchronous learning. However, no study to date has thoroughly assessed the landscape of educational podcasts in plastic surgery. Thus, this study aims to evaluate and characterize current educational plastic surgery podcasts to ultimately inform future efforts. METHODS: Three platforms were queried for educational plastic surgery podcasts: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts. Podcast descriptions and episodes were then independently reviewed to determine primary target audiences, performance metrics, and content categories. RESULTS: There were a total of 163 plastic surgery podcasts. 145 of these 163 podcasts were targeted toward a nonmedical audience. The remaining 18 podcasts met inclusion criteria as educational plastic surgery podcasts. Of all educational podcast episodes, 8.8% targeted a medical student audience, 33.8% targeted trainees (residents/fellows), and 57.4% targeted practicing surgeons or emphasized recent research in the field. Episode content categories included breast (14.2%), cosmetic (11.8%), experimental (0.5%), hand/peripheral nerve (8.6%), pediatric/craniofacial (8.2%), reconstructive (15.6%), practice management (14.8%), residency (6.6%), and others (19.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of plastic surgery podcasts available, few podcasts focus on educating a medical audience. Within this small subset, there is a paucity of content targeted towards medical students interested in plastic surgery. While there is a wide breadth of content available, there is significant room for growth and refinement in the podcast sector for plastic surgery education.