Reported Variability in General Surgery Training Across Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: Since their development, integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency training programs have established diverse methods of incorporating general surgery training into graduate medical education. Programs have questioned the necessary duration and timing of such training. The aim of this study is to assess the landscape of general surgery exposure in integrated PRS residency programs. METHODS: Thirty-six integrated PRS residency programs were included based on the availability of postgraduate year (PGY)-level rotation data. Rotations were measured in units of weeks with descriptive titles maintained as advertised by the program. Individual general surgery rotations were also categorized as being either PRS-aligned, American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) Required Clinical (RC) or ABPS Strongly Suggested (SS). Statistical analyses were carried out on the relative proportions of each subcategory in the 2 parent groups. RESULTS: All 36 programs evaluated required general surgery rotations in years PGY- 1 to -2. By PGY-3, 69% of programs required general surgery, and by PGY-6, 25%, and these were limited to 4- to 6-week rotations in burn, breast, or trauma. Looking across all 6 years, with 312 weeks of training total, the minimum number of weeks spent in general surgery rotations was 32, and the maximum number was 119, with an average of 61 weeks (±21).Programs were subcategorized into 2 groups based on whether they spent more (n = 16) or less (n = 20) than the net average number of weeks in ABPS RC + SS rotations. No significant difference was found in the relative proportion of PRS-aligned general surgery across groups. Programs with <60 weeks of general surgery had a relatively greater proportion of ABPS RC and SS rotations. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that there exists significant variability in overall duration of general surgery training across integrated PRS training programs. When controlling overall general surgery exposure for variables of interest like PRS-aligned exposure or compatibility with ABPS requirements, we found no discernable educational model or patterns to explain the observed range in exposure. These results warrant reexamination of an ideal general surgery track within the integrated plastic surgery training model that optimizes training for the PRS resident.

Patient Preferences for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Importance: Up to 40% of women experience dissatisfaction after breast reconstruction due to unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with personal preferences. Identifying what attributes patients value when considering surgery could improve shared decision-making. Adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis can elicit individual-level treatment preferences. Objectives: To identify which attributes of breast reconstruction are most important to women considering surgery and to describe how these attributes differ by those who prefer flap vs implant reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, at Duke University and between June 1 and December 31, 2022, through the Love Research Army with ACBC analysis. Participants were 105 women at Duke University with a new diagnosis of or genetic predisposition to breast cancer who were considering mastectomy with reconstruction and 301 women with a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition as identified through the Love Research Army registry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative importance scores, part-worth utility values, and maximum acceptable risks were estimated. Results: Overall, 406 women (105 from Duke University [mean (SD) age, 46.3 (10.5) years] and 301 from the Love Research Army registry [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.9) years]) participated. The attribute considered most important was the risk of abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] relative importance [RI], 28% [11%]), followed by chance of major complications (RI, 25% [10%]), number of additional operations (RI, 23% [12%]), appearance of the breasts (RI, 13% [12%]), and recovery time (RI, 11% [7%]). Most participants (344 [85%]) preferred implant-based reconstruction; these participants cared most about abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] RI, 30% [11%]), followed by the risk of complications (mean [SD], RI, 26% [11%]) and additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 21% [12%]). In contrast, participants who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 31% [15%]), appearance of the breasts (mean [SD] RI, 27% [16%]), and risk of complications (mean [SD] RI, 18% [6%]). Factors independently associated with choosing flap reconstruction included being married (odds ratio [OR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.04-5.08]; P = .04) and higher educational level (college education; OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.01-5.86]; P = .048), while having an income level of greater than $75 000 was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the flap profile (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.97]; P = .01). Respondents who preferred flap appearance were willing to accept a mean (SD) increase of 14.9% (2.2%) chance of abdominal morbidity (n = 113) or 6.4% (4.8%) chance of complications (n = 115). Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction. Future studies should assess how decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences can help tailor patient-physician discussions to focus preoperative counseling on factors that matter most to each patient and ultimately improve patient-centered care.

Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes Reporting in Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide essential information in reconstructive surgery, where interventions center on patients' functional and aesthetic goals. Although multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been validated for breast reconstruction since 2009, no studies have assessed recent frequency and consistency in use. This study aims to characterize recent trends in inclusion of PROs in recent breast reconstruction literature. METHODS: Articles published between 2015 and 2021 pertaining to autologous and/or prosthetic breast reconstruction in Annals of Plastic Surgery and Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery were considered in a scoping review. Original breast reconstruction articles were reviewed for use of PROMs and characteristics of administration in accordance with PRISMA-Scr guidelines. Previously defined scoping review criteria were considered, including PROM used, timeline of collection, and topics addressed, with trends in frequency and consistency of usage assessed over the designated period. RESULTS: Of the 877 articles reviewed and 232 articles included, 24.6% reported using any PROM. The majority used BREAST-Q (n = 42, 73.7%), with the remainder being institutional surveys or previously validated questionnaires. Patient-reported outcomes were most often collected retrospectively (n = 20, 64.9%) and postoperatively (n = 33, 57.9%). The average time point of postoperative survey administration was 16.03 months (SD, 19.185 months). χ2 Analysis revealed no significant association between the numbers of articles, including PROMs and the year (P = 0.1047). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that only one-fourth of breast reconstruction articles report the use of PROMs with no interval increase over recent years. Patient-reported outcome measures were predominantly used retrospectively and postoperatively with notable variation in timing of administration. The findings highlight the need for improved frequency and consistency of PROM collection and reporting, as well as for further exploration into barriers and facilitators of PROM use.