Facial Aesthetic Ideals: A Literature Summary of Supporting Evidence.

BACKGROUND: To achieve the goal of enhancing facial beauty it is crucial for aesthetic physicians and plastic surgeons to have a deep understanding of aesthetic ideals. Although numerous aesthetic criteria have been proposed over the years, there is a lack of empirical analysis supporting many of these standards. OBJECTIVES: This aim of this review was to undertake the first exploration of the empirical evidence concerning the aesthetic ideals of the face in the existing literature. METHODS: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and CENTRAL databases was conducted for primary clinical studies reporting on the classification of the facial aesthetic units as per the Gonzales-Ulloa facial aesthetic unit classification from January 1962 to November 2022. RESULTS: A total of 36 articles were included in the final review: 12 case series, 14 cohort studies, and 10 comparative studies. These described the aesthetic ideals of the following areas: forehead (6 studies; mean level of evidence, 3.33); nose (9 studies; mean level of evidence, 3.6); orbit (6 studies; mean level of evidence, 3); cheek (4 studies; mean level of evidence, 4.07); lips (6 studies; mean level of evidence, 3.33); chin (4 studies; mean level of evidence, 3.75); ear (1 study; level of evidence, 4). CONCLUSIONS: The units that were most extensively studied were the nose, forehead, and lip, and these studies also appeared in journals with higher impact factors than other subunits. Conversely, the chin and ear subunits had the fewest studies conducted on them and had lower impact factors. To provide a useful resource for readers, it would be prudent to identify and discuss influential papers for each subunit.

Virtual Interactive Surgical Skills Classroom: A Parallel-group, Non-inferiority, Adjudicator-blinded, Randomised Controlled Trial (VIRTUAL).

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy of virtual classroom training (VCT) in comparison to face-to-face training (FFT) and non-interactive computer-based learning (CBL) for basic surgical skills training. DESIGN: This was a parallel-group, non-inferiority, prospective randomised controlled trial with three intervention groups conducted in 2021. There were three intervention groups with allocation ratio 1:1:1. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to intervention assignment. Interventions consisted of 90-minute training sessions. VCT was delivered via the BARCO weConnect platform, FFT was provided in-person by expert instructors and CBL was carried out by participants independently. The primary outcome was post-intervention Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills score, adjudicated by two experts and adjusted for baseline proficiency. The assessed task was to place three interrupted sutures with hand-tied knots. SETTING: This multicentre study recruited from five medical schools in London. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were medical student status and access to a personal computer and smartphone. One hundred fifty-nine eligible individuals applied online. Seventy-two participants were randomly selected and stratified by subjective and objective suturing experience prior to permuted block randomization. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants were allocated to each intervention, all were analysed per-protocol. The sample was 65.3% female with mean age 21.3 (SD 2.1). VCT was non-inferior to FFT (adjusted difference 0.44, 95% CI: -0.54 to 1.75, delta 0.675), VCT was superior to CBL (adjusted difference 1.69, 95% CI: 0.41-2.96) and FFT was superior to CBL (adjusted difference 1.25, 95% CI: 0.20-2.29). The costs per-attendee associated with VCT, FFT and CBL were £22.15, £39.69 and £16.33 respectively. Instructor hours used per student for VCT and FFT were 0.25 and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VCT provides greater accessibility and resource efficiency compared to FFT, with similar educational benefit. VCT has the potential to improve global availability and accessibility of surgical skills training.

Improving wellbeing among UK doctors redeployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the NHS has implemented significant workforce changes to manage the increased and changing demand on healthcare services. We aimed to investigate the impact of redeployment on the wellbeing of doctors as well as highlighting ways to improve. METHODS: We conducted a survey at three NHS trusts over 2 weeks asking redeployed doctors to rate their morale, work-life balance and perceived support and safety, and to voice concerns. RESULTS: 172 redeployed doctors responded to the survey. 66.3% felt confident in their new role, 65.7% felt satisfied or neutral with their new role and only 31.4% felt stressed at work. 66.3% felt valued by their team and 79% felt valued by the general public. 64.5% had noticed an increase in the length of breaks and 89% felt their rotas provided sufficient respite. 55.2% did not feel confident in the guidance from Public Health England/Wales on using personal protective equipment (PPE) and 54.7% did not feel safe while wearing PPE. The three most common concerns were training opportunities, PPE and family health. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that morale is higher than might be expected with doctors feeling valued, confident and well rested in their new role. Concerns about training opportunities/career progression, PPE and family safety need to be addressed.