Revisiting Level of Evidence Ratings in Plastic Surgery: A Call to Action.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine underpins medical and surgical practice, with level of evidence (LOE) being a key aspect that allows clinicians and researchers to better discriminate the methodological context by which studies are conducted and appropriately interpret their conclusions, and more specifically the strength of their recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to reassess the LOE of articles published in plastic surgery journals. METHODS: To assess the overall LOE of publications from January 1 to December 31, 2021, a review of the following plastic surgery journals was performed: Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), Annals of Plastic Surgery (Annals), Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JRPAS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO). RESULTS: Of 3698 PUBMED articles, 1649 original articles and systematic reviews were analyzed. The average LOE for each journal was: ASJ 3.02 ± 0.94, Annals 3.49 ± 0.62, JPRAS 3.33 ± 0.77, PRS 2.91 ± 0.77, and PRS GO 3.45 ± 0.70. The collective average LOE was 3.28 ± 0.78. Only 4.4% were LOE 1 and 7.3% were LOE 2. Compared to past studies, PRS showed a significant LOE improvement (P = .0254), while ASJ and JPRAS saw nonsignificant changes; Annals experienced a significant decrease (P = .0092). CONCLUSIONS: ASJ and PRS showed the highest LOE among the journals analyzed. Despite this, low LOE studies remain prevalent in plastic surgery. This paper serves as a call to action for both researchers and academic journals to elevate the standard, offering several strategies to help improve the LOE in plastic surgery.

American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline Revision: Reduction Mammaplasty.

SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies convened to revise the guideline for reduction mammaplasty. The goal was to develop evidence-based patient care recommendations using the new American Society of Plastic Surgeons guideline methodology. The work group prioritized reviewing the evidence around the need for surgery as first-line treatment, regardless of resection weight or volume. Other factors evaluated included the need for drains, the need for postoperative oral antibiotics, risk factors that increase complications, a comparison in outcomes between the two most popular techniques (inferior and superomedial), the impact of local anesthetic on narcotic use and other nonnarcotic pain management strategies, the use of epinephrine, and the need for specimen pathology. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology). Evidence-based recommendations were made and strength was determined based on the level of evidence and the assessment of benefits and harms.

Novel Strategies for Evaluating and Improving Plastic Surgery Applicant Selection.

SUMMARY: Residency applicant evaluation and selection is a critical part of developing and maintaining a high-quality plastic surgery residency program. Currently, many programs rely on objective measures such as the United States Medical Licensing Exam scores, number of research publications, grade point average, Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society status, or a combination of these objective metrics. However, there is a growing body of literature suggesting that the current means of residency applicant evaluation and selection may not be the best predictive factors of future resident success. The aim of this study was to identify nontraditional means of evaluating plastic surgery residency candidates and discuss how these means have been implemented at the authors' institution. After reviewing industry hiring practices, the authors propose that standardized interviewing and personality testing can help evaluate some of the previously intangible parts of an applicant that may play a role in teamwork, commitment, and dedication to patient care.

Social Media Guidelines for Young Plastic Surgeons and Plastic Surgery Training Programs.

SUMMARY: Social media are a powerful tool that creates a unique opportunity for the young plastic surgeon and trainee to share content, brand oneself, educate the public, and develop one's own professional voice early. The majority of all plastic surgery programs and particularly those that are highly ranked have social media opportunities for their residents, yet clear rules to guide implementation of social media programming in residency have remained unspecified. These guidelines and pitfalls can be used to inform a productive and professional entry into plastic surgery social media use for the resident and young plastic surgeon. Details regarding specific platform use to maximize exposure are provided. The core principles of patient safety and privacy, authentic photography, plastic surgery education and advocacy, and professionalism inform these guidelines. Pitfalls include establishment of an online physician-patient relationship, engaging in debate by means of online reviews, providing medical entertainment, and engaging in non-plastic surgery politics. Use of these guidelines will allow the young plastic surgeon and trainee to succeed by means of social media platforms in an ethical and professional manner.

Plastic Surgery amidst the Pandemic: The New York University Experience at the Epicenter of the COVID-19 Crisis.

SUMMARY: The coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic became a global threat in a matter of weeks, with its future implications yet to be defined. New York City was swiftly declared the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States as case numbers grew exponentially in a matter of days, quickly threatening to overwhelm the capacity of the health care system. This burgeoning crisis led practitioners across specialties to adapt and mobilize rapidly. Plastic surgeons and trainees within the New York University Langone Health system faced uncertainty in terms of future practice, in addition to immediate and long-term effects on undergraduate and graduate medical education. The administration remained vigilant and adaptive, enacting departmental policies prioritizing safety and productivity, with early deployment of faculty for clinical support at the front lines. The authors anticipate that this pandemic will have far-reaching effects on the future of plastic surgery education, trends in the pursuit of elective surgical procedures, and considerable consequences for certain research endeavors. Undoubtedly, there will be substantial impact on the physical and mental well-being of health care practitioners across specialties. Coordinated efforts and clear lines of communication between the Department of Plastic Surgery and its faculty and trainees allowed a concerted effort toward the immediate challenge of tempering the spread of coronavirus disease of 2019 and preserving structure and throughput for education and research. Adaptation and creativity have ultimately allowed for early rebooting of in-person clinical and surgical practice. The authors present their coordinated efforts and lessons gleaned from their experience to inform their community's preparedness as this formidable challenge evolves.

Assessment of Plastic Surgery Residency Applications without United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scores.

SUMMARY: The United States Medical Licensing Examination announced the changing of Step 1 score reporting from a three-digit number to pass/fail beginning on January 1, 2022. Plastic surgery residency programs have traditionally used United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores to compare plastic surgery residency applicants. Without a numerical score, the plastic surgery residency application review process will likely change. This article discusses advantages, disadvantages, and steps forward for residency programs related to the upcoming change. The authors encourage programs to continue to seek innovative methods of objectively and holistically evaluating applications.