Trends in the research profile of matched independent plastic surgery fellows.

ABSTRACT: The independent plastic surgery pathway recruits candidates with 5 years of surgical training who are typically more advanced in research than their integrated counterparts. Research productivity helps to discriminate between applicants. However, no studies exist detailing the academic attributes of matched independent plastic surgery candidates.We performed a cohort study of 161 independent plastic surgery fellows from accredited residency programs from the 2015 to 2017 application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis utilizing Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify research output measures at the time of application.The cohort was predominantly men (66%) with a median of 3 articles and a H-index of 1 at the time of application. Interestingly, 16% of successful candidates had no published articles at the time of application, and this did not change significantly over time (P = .0740). Although the H-index remained stable (R 0.13, P = .1095), the number of published journal articles per candidate significantly decreased over 3 consecutive application cycles (R -0.16, P = .0484). Analysis of article types demonstrated a significant increase in basic science articles (R 0.18, P = .0366) and a concurrent decrease in editorial-type publications (R = -0.18, P = .0374).Despite the decline in publication volume of matched independent plastic surgery fellows, the quality of their research portfolio has remained constant. Matched applicants appear to be shifting focus from faster-to-publish articles to longer but higher impact projects. In selecting a training route, applicants must weigh the highly competitive integrated path against the dwindling number of independent positions.

Follow the money: Investigating gender disparity in industry payments among senior academics and leaders in plastic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in academic qualifications are cited as the reason behind the documented gender gap in industry sponsorship to academic plastic surgeons. Gendered imbalances in academic metrics narrow among senior academic plastic surgeons. However, it is unknown whether this gender parity translates to industry payments. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to plastic surgeons in 2018. Inclusion criteria encompassed (i) faculty with the rank of professor or a departmental leadership position. Exclusion criteria included faculty (i) who belonged to a speciality besides plastic surgery; (ii) whose gender could not be determined; or (iii) whose name could not be located on the Open Payment Database. Faculty and title were identified using departmental listings of ACGME plastic surgery residency programs. We extracted industry payment data through the Open Payment Database. We also collected details on H-index and time in practice. Statistical analysis included odds ratios (OR) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (R). RESULTS: We identified 316 senior academic plastic surgeons. The cohort was predominately male (88%) and 91% held a leadership role. Among departmental leaders, women were more likely to be an assistant professor (OR 3.9, p = 0.0003) and heads of subdivision (OR 2.1, p = 0.0382) than men. Industry payments were distributed equally to male and female senior plastic surgeons except for speakerships where women received smaller amounts compared to their male counterparts (median payments of $3,675 vs $7,134 for women and men respectively, p<0.0001). Career length and H-index were positively associated with dollar value of total industry payments (R = 0.17, p = 0.0291, and R = 0.14, p = 0.0405, respectively). CONCLUSION: Disparity in industry funding narrows at senior levels in academic plastic surgery. At higher academic levels, industry sponsorship may preferentially fund individuals based on academic productivity and career length. Increased transparency in selection criteria for speakerships is warranted.

Cost Utility of Breast Tissue Expansion using Carbon Dioxide versus Saline: An Analysis of Infection Risk.

BACKGROUND: The AeroForm System, a needle-free, patient-controlled carbon dioxide-filled tissue expander, represents a novel option for tissue expansion in 2-stage breast reconstruction. This technology has previously been found to decrease time to expansion, health-care utilization, and infection rates. The purpose of this study was to determine the economic impact of the reduced infection rate observed with the AeroForm tissue expander as compared with saline tissue expansion. METHODS: A decision model incorporating costs, quality-adjusted life years, and clinical outcomes of infection was designed to evaluate the cost-efficacy of AeroForm tissue expanders versus conventional saline expanders. All statistical calculations were performed in the R statistical computing environment. RESULTS: Pooled infection rates from the published literature following saline and AeroForm tissue expander placement were 5.83% and 2.62%, respectively. Cost-utility analysis resulted in a baseline expected savings of $253.29 and an expected gain of 0.00122 quality-adjusted life years with AeroForm tissue expanders. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that AeroForm tissue expanders were dominant when the surgical site infection rate was greater than 4.56% with traditional saline expanders. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical benefits of an innovation are no longer sufficient to justify its acquisition costs. Novel technologies must also demonstrate favorable economic outcomes. This cost-utility analysis demonstrates that the use of AeroForm expanders is likely a cost-saving technology for 2-stage breast reconstruction.