Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Scope of practice of oculofacial plastic and reconstructive surgeons: a public perception survey.
Mukit, Fabliha A; Kim, Emily Y; Hilliard, Grant; Pilkinton, Sophie; Walker, Marc E; Wilson, Matthew W; Fowler, Brian T.
Afiliação
  • Mukit FA; Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
  • Kim EY; College of Medicine, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
  • Hilliard G; College of Medicine, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
  • Pilkinton S; College of Medicine, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
  • Walker ME; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA.
  • Wilson MW; Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
  • Fowler BT; Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Orbit ; 43(5): 576-582, 2024 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38815176
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study is to determine the public's perception of the scope of practice for oculofacial plastic and reconstructive surgeons (OFPRS).

METHODS:

A 49-question survey was distributed by QualtricsⓇ to a panel similar to the US demographic composition. Responses collected underwent bivariate statistical analysis.

RESULT:

A total of 530 responses were obtained, with most respondents being white, female, over the age of 35, from the Midwest, and with at least a college education or above. Most respondents did not think ophthalmologists or optometrists were surgeons, and only 158 people (29.8%) knew the primary specialty of OFPRS was ophthalmology. Board certification was preferred by 98.87% of respondents, and 95.28% preferred ASOPRS-trained OFPRS.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study highlights the gap in knowledge about OFPRS as a field, the qualifications and training required, and the scope of practice. Notably, even for OFPRS-specific procedures, PRS remained the leading subspecialist chosen for interventions such as orbital decompression (58.5% vs. 71.5%), orbital reconstruction (57.9% vs. 74.2%), enucleation/evisceration (48.1% vs. 53.4%), optic nerve-related surgery (39.8% vs. 43.4%), orbital cancer resection (42.8% vs. 46.8%), and tear duct surgery (41.9% vs. 52.5%). Additionally, most respondents did not feel that facial fillers, laser skin resurfacing, eyelid cancer removal, or cataract surgery were within the OFPRS scope of practice.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Cirurgia Plástica / Procedimentos de Cirurgia Plástica Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Orbit Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Cirurgia Plástica / Procedimentos de Cirurgia Plástica Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Orbit Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos