Incomes to Outcomes: A Global Assessment of Disparities in Cleft and Craniofacial Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Recent investigations focused on health equity have enumerated widespread disparities in cleft and craniofacial care. This review introduces a structured framework to aggregate findings and direct future research. DESIGN: Systematic review was performed to identify studies assessing health disparities based on race/ethnicity, payor type, income, geography, and education in cleft and craniofacial surgery in high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effect models for disparities described in three or more studies. SETTING: N/A. PATIENTS: Patients with cleft lip/palate, craniosynostosis, craniofacial syndromes, and craniofacial trauma. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven articles were included (80% cleft, 20% craniofacial; 48% HIC-based). Studies in HICs predominantly described disparities (77%,) and in LMICs focused on reducing disparities (42%). Level II-IV evidence replicated delays in cleft repair, alveolar bone grafting, and cranial vault remodeling for non-White and publicly insured patients in HICs (Grades A-B). Grade B-D evidence from LMICs suggested efficacy of community-based speech therapy and remote patient navigation programs. Meta-analysis demonstrated that Black patients underwent craniosynostosis surgery 2.8 months later than White patients (P < .001) and were less likely to undergo minimally-invasive surgery (OR 0.36, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in cleft and craniofacial surgical treatment are consistently identified with high-level evidence among non-White and publicly-insured families in HICs. Multiple tactics to facilitate patient access and adapt multi-disciplinary case in austere settings are reported from LMICs. Future efforts including those sharing tactics among HICs and LMICs hold promise to help mitigate barriers to care.

Opportunity Costs of Internal Promotions in Plastic Surgery: Are Women Given a Fair Shot?

Background: Academic advancement in plastic surgery necessitates creation of opportunities for rising faculty, which are pivotal for women in their efforts to close prominent gender gaps in higher ranks. We study positions of academic prestige that benefit from internal nomination as surrogates for opportunities afforded to men and women seeking leadership roles. Methods: We collected the following datapoints: authors of invited discussions published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2010 to 2019; current editorial board members of representative plastic surgery journals; recipients of society-sponsored traveling fellowships; and directors of the American Board of Plastic Surgery. Public profiles for all authors and surgeons were referenced to confirm gender identification. Results: Seven-hundred ninety-seven plastic and reconstructive surgery discussions were included, 18% of which included female first or senior authorship. Seventy-one (9%) discussions listed a female senior author. Male and female senior authors were equally as likely to collaborate with a female first co-author (25% and 26%, respectively). Only 17% of invited authors contributed to 55% of discussion articles. Women occupied 19% of journal editorial board positions, though none were editors-in-chief. American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery, American Society of Maxiliofacial Surgeons, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, and Plastic Surgery Foundation traveling fellowships were awarded to one (3%), four (7%), five (13%), and 141 (15%) female plastic surgeons, respectively. Women comprise 26% of directors of American Board of Plastic Surgery. Conclusions: Female representation in plastic surgery is rising, but it is not mirrored across appointed positions in academia. We should strive to support advancements that allow selected prestigious positions to more accurately reflect the gender distribution within the plastic surgery community.

Update: Diversity and Practice Patterns of International Craniomaxillofacial Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The authors' group characterized the cranio-maxillo-facial workforce 10 years ago, revealing high levels of career satisfaction but significant gender disparity. This study provides an updated profile of the international cranio-maxillo-facial workforce. METHODS: A 30-question electronic survey was distributed to 387 cranio-maxillo-facial surgeons with membership in the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons, American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, and international Society of Craniofacial Surgery. Questions related to demographics, training background, practice setting, surgical volume, career satisfaction, and perceived discrimination. Independent samples t test was used to compare continuous variables. RESULTS: The authors received 91 responses (response rate = 23.5%). The majority of respondents were White (n = 73, 80.2%), non-Hispanic (n = 85, 93.4%), heterosexual (n = 72, 79.1%), cisgender males (n = 74, 81.3%). Practice setting was primarily academic, 65.9% (n = 60) and group/hospital-based 88.3% (n = 68), with two-thirds of respondents practicing in the United States. Female surgeons reported earlier planned retirement (66 versus 70 years, P = 0.012) and more personal encounters with discrimination of any kind (69% versus 29%, P = 0.033). US craniofacial surgeons reported more racial and sexual orientation-based discrimination compared with non-US surgeons ( P = 0.049 and P = 0.048, respectively). Older surgeons (>55 years old) reported less perceived gender discrimination ( P = 0.041). There was no difference between subgroups in career satisfaction or likelihood of repeating/recommending a cranio-maxillo-facial fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Female representation in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery on an international scale has increased over the past decade, but this study demonstrates persistent, disparate perception of workplace discrimination by gender, practice region, and age.

The Evolving Presence of Women in Academic Plastic Surgery: A Study of the Past 40 Years.

BACKGROUND: Among surgical subspecialties, plastic surgery holds the highest percentage of women, and, the female contingent of board-certified plastic surgeons and trainees has grown steadily. However, their academic impact has been underestimated. We present the academic footprint of female plastic surgeons over the past 40 years. METHODS: A list of female plastic surgeons currently active at, and retired from, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited plastic surgery residency programs was compiled. Each surgeon was searched on PubMed to gather their total number of publications, journals, and topics of research after completion of training. Date of publication and 5-year impact factor for each journal were recorded. Publications were organized into 10-year periods (1976 to 1985, 1986 to 1995, 1996 to 2005, and 2006 to 2016). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five currently active and 80 retired academic female plastic surgeons were identified, who published 2982 articles in 479 peer-reviewed journals. The average 5-year impact factor was 4.093. The number of publications increased with each decade: 37 (1976 to 1985), 218 (1986 to 1995), 472 (1996 to 2005), and 2255 (2006 to 2016). The most commonly published areas were hand/nerve (22 percent), craniofacial (21 percent), and breast (20 percent). Over time, publications in hand/nerve research decreased (76, 60, 38, and 14 percent, respectively); craniofacial-related publications increased (8, 11, 18, and 23 percent, respectively); and publications in breast research increased (0, 8, 9, and 24 percent, respectively). The 2006 to 2016 period yielded the most even distribution of research topics. CONCLUSION: The academic contribution of female plastic surgeons has substantially increased in number and has become more evenly distributed across subspecialty topics.

Internet-Based Digital Simulation for Cleft Surgery Education: A 5-Year Assessment of Demographics, Usage, and Global Effect.

BACKGROUND: In October 2012, a freely available, internet-based cleft simulator was created in partnership between academic, nonprofit, and industry sectors. The purpose of this educational resource was to address global disparities in cleft surgery education. This report assesses demographics, usage, and global effect of our simulator, in its fifth year since inception. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the global effect, usage, and demographics of an internet-based educational digital simulation cleft surgery software. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Simulator modules, available in five languages demonstrate surgical anatomy, markings, detailed procedures, and intraoperative footage to supplement digital animation. Available data regarding number of users, sessions, countries reached, and content access were recorded. Surveys evaluating the demographic characteristics of registered users and simulator use were collected by direct e-mail. RESULTS: The total number of simulator new and active users reached 2865 and 4086 in June 2017, respectively. By June 2017, users from 136 countries had accessed the simulator. From 2015 to 2017, the number of sessions was 11,176 with a monthly average of 399.0 ± 190.0. Developing countries accounted for 35% of sessions and the average session duration was 9.0 ± 7.3 minutes. This yields a total simulator screen time of 100,584 minutes (1676 hours). Most survey respondents were surgeons or trainees (87%) specializing in plastic, maxillofacial, or general surgery (89%). Most users found the simulator to be useful (88%), at least equivalent or more useful than other resources (83%), and used it for teaching (58%). CONCLUSIONS: Our internet-based interactive cleft surgery platform reaches its intended target audience, is not restricted by socioeconomic barriers to access, and is judged to be useful by surgeons. More than 4000 active users have been reached since inception. The total screen time over approximately 2 years exceeded 1600 hours. This suggests that future surgical simulators of this kind may be sustainable by stakeholders interested in reaching this target audience.

How many people work in your operating room? An assessment of factors associated with instrument recounts within plastic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative instrument recounts are performed to avoid retained foreign surgical items. These additional counts, however, beget risks of their own, including prolonged operative times, exposure to radiation, and increased cost. Our study aimed to identify factors that increase the likelihood of instrument recounts during plastic surgery procedures, and use our findings to guide potential solutions for preventing unnecessary recounts across all surgical fields. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of all plastic surgical cases in the main operating setting at New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC) between March 2014 and February 2015. RESULTS: Of 1285 plastic surgery cases, 35 (2.7%) reported a missing instrument necessitating a recount. Of all subspecialties within plastic surgery, only microsurgery conferred an increased risk of a recount event. We identified multiple factors that increased the odds of a recount event, including increased operative time, number of surgical sites, and intraoperative instrument handoffs. CONCLUSION: Instrument recounts, although designed to prevent inadvertently retained surgical items, present inherent risks of their own. In a large retrospective review of plastic surgery cases at our medical center, we identified many factors that increased the likelihood of an instrument recount. On the basis of our findings and prior literature, we recommend limiting the number of staff handling instrument, the number of handoffs, and a heightened awareness by surgeons and perioperative staff of specific procedures and factors that increase the risk of a miscount event.

The Drivers of Academic Success in Cleft and Craniofacial Centers: A 10-Year Analysis of over 2000 Publications.

BACKGROUND: Cleft and craniofacial centers require significant investment by medical institutions, yet variables contributing to their academic productivity remain unknown. This study characterizes the elements associated with high academic productivity in these centers. METHODS: The authors analyzed cleft and craniofacial centers accredited by the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Variables such as university affiliation; resident training; number of plastic surgery, oral-maxillofacial, and dental faculty; and investment in a craniofacial surgery, craniofacial orthodontics fellowship program, or both, were obtained. Craniofacial and cleft-related research published between July of 2005 and June of 2015 was identified. A stepwise multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to measure outcomes of total publications, summative impact factor, basic science publications, total journals, and National Institutes of Health funding. RESULTS: One hundred sixty centers were identified, comprising 920 active faculty, 34 craniofacial surgery fellowships, and eight craniofacial orthodontic fellowships; 2356 articles were published in 191 journals. Variables most positively associated with a high number of publications were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.608), craniofacial surgery fellowships (ß = 0.231), number of plastic surgery faculty (ß = 0.213), and university affiliation (ß = 0.165). Variables most positively associated with high a number of journals were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.550), university affiliation (ß = 0.251), number of plastic surgery faculty (ß = 0.230), and craniofacial surgery fellowship (ß = 0.218). Variables most positively associated with a high summative impact factor were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.648), craniofacial surgery fellowship (ß = 0.208), number of plastic surgery faculty (ß = 0.207), and university affiliation (ß = 0.116). Variables most positively associated with basic science publications were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.676) and craniofacial surgery fellowship (ß = 0.208). The only variable associated with National Institutes of Health funding was craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowship (ß = 0.332). CONCLUSION: Participation in both craniofacial surgery and orthodontics fellowships demonstrates the strongest association with academic success; craniofacial surgery fellowship, university affiliation, and number of surgeons are also predictive.