Assessing the Benefits and Downsides of Physician Review Websites to Plastic Surgeons: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients often evaluate the reputations of plastic surgeons based on their performances on physician review websites. This article aims to compare rating methodologies and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of physician review websites to further understand how plastic surgeons and their patients can utilize review websites to inform their practice and care. METHODS: A review of online literature, blogs, and 17 of the most common physician review websites was conducted to identify information on review website methodology, cost, and benefits most pertinent to plastic surgeons and their patients. RESULTS: Physician review websites utilize various combinations of physician-related and unrelated criteria to evaluate plastic surgeons. Across 17 reviewed platforms, most (71%) utilize star ratings to rate physicians, 18% require an appointment to conduct a review, and 35% feature search engine optimization. Many websites (53%) allow physicians to pay for benefits or extension packages, with benefits offered including advertising, search engine optimization, competitor blocking, social media marketing, consultant services, and data analytics. Competitor blocking was provided by the most number of websites who offered additional services for pay (78%). CONCLUSIONS: Appointments are not required to post physician reviews on many review websites, and many websites allow physicians to purchase packages to enhance their search engine optimization or consumer reach. Accordingly, plastic surgeons' reputations on review websites may be influenced by factors extraneous to actual patient care. Patients and physicians should be cognizant that physician review websites may not be reflective of factors related to quality of patient care.

The cost of cosmetic surgery tourism complications to the NHS: A retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Medical tourism refers to the process of patients travelling outside of their native country to undergo elective surgical procedures and is a rapidly expanding healthcare phenomenon [1-3]. Whilst a multitude of established Private Healthcare Providers (PHPs) offer cosmetic surgical procedures within the United Kingdom (UK), a growing number of patients are opting to travel outside of the UK to undergo cosmetic surgery. AIM: To assess the number of patients presenting to the Canniesburn Plastic Surgery Unit, with cosmetic surgery tourism complications, from outside of the UK, and the associated costs to NHS Scotland over a five-year period. METHODS: A retrospective case review of a prospectively maintained trauma database, which records all acute referrals, was undertaken analysing patients referred from January 1st 2019 to December 31st 2023 inclusive. RESULTS: 81 patients presented over five years with complications of cosmetic surgery tourism. The most common presenting complaints were wound dehiscence (49.4%) or wound infection (24.7%). The total cost to NHS Scotland was £755,559.68 with an average of £9327.90 per patient. CONCLUSION: This is the largest single centre cohort of cosmetic surgery tourism complications reported within the NHS to date; with rates on the rise, demand grows for increased patient information regarding healthcare tourism risks, a national consensus on the extent of NHS management and urgent international collaboration with policymakers is required to address this issue across borders.

The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF): A 30-Year Retrospective Analysis.

Federal government research grants provide limited funding to plastic surgeon-scientists, with reconstructive research taking precedence over aesthetic research. The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to support innovative, diverse research endeavors within aesthetic surgery. A total of 130 ASERF-funded studies and 32 non-funded applications from 1992 to 2022 were reviewed. Kruskal Wallis, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests were utilized to assess the potential relationship between self-identified gender, practice setting, geographical location, and study type with individual grant amounts and grant funding decision. Although significant differences were observed between male and female grant recipient h-indices (P < .05), there were no differences in the amount of funding they received (P > .05). Grant amounts were also consistent between study types as well as principal investigator practice settings and geographical locations (P > .05). The subanalysis revealed that the practice setting of the primary investigator (PI) was the only variable to exhibit a significant association with the decision to award funding (P < .05). Further, of the 61 applicants between 2017 and 2022, only 2 PIs self-identified as female. ASERF serves as an excellent funding source for global aesthetic surgery. To promote further research diversification, increased emphasis should be placed on recruiting applicants from outside academia and those who identify as female or gender nonbinary.

Current Practice and Perceptions Regarding Cost Communication in Breast Cancer Reconstruction: Survey Results of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Rising out-of-pocket costs (OOCs) are a major concern for breast cancer survivors. However, information on how plastic surgeons performing breast reconstruction (BR) perceive and communicate cost information is limited. METHODS: An electronic, anonymous survey eliciting plastic surgeons' attitudes and behaviors regarding BR cost communication was distributed to active American Society of Plastic Surgery members. Questions were derived from previously published studies and entailed a 5-point Likert scale. Cost communication was identified based on dichotomized responses to the prompt, "I discuss the costs of breast reconstruction with my patients," and analyzed for associated factors. RESULTS: Of the 5112 surgeons surveyed, 396 plastic surgeons responded (7.21%). Most of the surgeons reported having a sense of a patient's financial well-being (65%) and an awareness of treatment costs (66.9%). Most felt a responsibility to consider the impact of BR costs (69%). Although most of the surgeons expressed that they were comfortable having OOC discussions (58.9%), only a minority reported doing so routinely (24.2%). The fewest respondents (8.6%) cited OOC as an important variable for BR decision-making. Lack of supportive tools was the most cited barrier to having cost communication with patients (64.8%). Cost communication was identified in a minority (20.2%) of surgeon-patient encounters and had no significant relationship to surgeon demographics or practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons rarely discuss costs of BR with patients despite having a high awareness of the topic and feeling comfortable with it. Prevailing attitudes about the importance of OOC and the lack of administrative support or cost information are likely the drivers of this mismatch and warrant further study.

Sex Disparity in Academic Rank and Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing representation in surgery, women continue to lag behind men in important metrics. Little is known on how industry funding may also contribute to this ongoing disparity. This article seeks to quantify industry payments to academic plastic surgeons (APSs) by sex and examine the relationship between funding and academic achievement. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to APSs in 2017. Faculty were identified using departmental listings of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education plastic surgery residency programs. Payments were identified via the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payment database. Academic achievement was assessed using rank (eg, assistant professor), leadership designation (eg, division head), and Scopus H-index and then controlled for time in practice. RESULTS: Of the 805 APSs, the majority were male (82% male vs 18% female, P < 0.0001). Significant sex differences emerged in average yearly industry contributions (men, US $3202, vs women, US $707; P < 0.0001). Across all academic ranks, men received significantly higher payments than women (P < 0.0500). Men constituted 93% of full professors and were almost twice as likely to hold additional leadership positions compared with women (odds ratio, 1.82; P = 0.0143). After adjustment for time in practice, there was no difference in H-indices between male and female APSs, although payment disparity persisted (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial sex-based disparities exist among APSs' academic rank and leadership attainment, which is not attributed to differences in academic qualifications or experience. To better elucidate the sources of this disparity, future studies should assess sexed differences in payment types. Furthermore, we urge for increased transparency in the selection process for industry payments.

What Do Plastic Surgery Patients Think of Financial Conflicts of Interest and the Sunshine Act?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' views of conflicts of interest (COI) and their comprehension of recent legislation known as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. This report constitutes the first evaluation of plastic surgery patients' views on COI and the government-mandated Sunshine Act. METHODS: This cross-sectional study invited patients at an academic, general plastic surgery outpatient clinic to complete an anonymous survey. The survey contained 25 questions that assessed respondents' perceptions of physician COI and awareness of the Sunshine Act. Analyses were performed to examine whether perspectives on COI and the Sunshine Act varied by level of education or age. RESULTS: A total of 361 individuals completed the survey (90% response rate). More than half of respondents with an opinion believed that COI would affect their physician's clinical decision-making (n = 152, 52.9%). Although almost three fourths (n = 196, 71.2%) believed that COI should be regulated and COI information reported to a government agency, the majority were not aware of the Sunshine Act before this survey (n = 277, 81.2%) and had never accessed the database (n = 327, 95.9%). More than half of patients (n = 161, 59.2%) stated that they would access a publicly available database with physicians' COI information. A larger proportion of older and educated patients believed that regulation of physicians' COI was important (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of and access to plastic surgeon COI information is low among plastic surgery patients. Older and more educated patients believed that transparency regarding COI is important with regard to their clinical care.

An Analysis of Plastic Surgeons' Social Media Use and Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Social media have become ubiquitous in society with an increasing number of active daily users across multiple platforms. Social media use has grown within the field of plastic surgery; many surgeons have created a professional account to gain exposure. OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the patterns of use and perceptions of social media in plastic surgery. METHODS: A 16-item questionnaire was sent electronically to board-certified plastic surgeons to investigate professional social media use and perceptions. A literature review of all studies pertaining to social media and plastic surgery was also undertaken. RESULTS: An online survey was sent to 6136 ASPS members with 454 responses (7.4%). Of the respondents, 61.9% reported having an active professional social media account. Respondents whose practice primarily consisted of aesthetic/cosmetic surgery were the most likely to have an active professional social media account (79.4%). Nonacademic surgeons were most likely to maintain an active professional social media account (71.9%) compared with university-affiliated community surgeons (41.4%) and academic surgeons (29.5%). Nonacademic surgeons were more likely to believe social media is positive for the field (48.9%) compared with the other 2 cohorts (27.6% and 35.1%, respectively). Academic surgeons are more likely to believe social media worsens the image of the field (49.3%) vs the other cohorts (35.4% and 37.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Professional social media use is rising within plastic surgery. However, a dichotomy exists in acceptance. Private practice, younger surgeons are more likely to view social media as an acceptable method of reaching patients.

Does industry funding mean more publications for subspecialty academic plastic surgeons?

BACKGROUND: Conflict of interest among physicians in the context of private industry funding led to the introduction of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. This study examined whether private industry funding correlated with scholarly productivity in the respective subspecialties of plastic surgery and the wider academic plastic surgery community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-time plastic surgeons and their academic attributes were identified via institutional websites. Fellowship-trained individuals were segregated into subspecialties of microsurgery, craniofacial surgery, hand surgery, esthetic surgery, and burn surgery. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to extract industry funding information. Each individual's bibliometric data were then collected through Scopus to determine the correlation between selected surgeon characteristics, academic productivity, and industry funding. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-five academic plastic surgeons were identified, with 532 having defined subspecialty training. Academic bibliometrics among subspecialty surgeons were comparable among the five groups with esthetic and craniofacial surgeons displaying a preponderance of attaining more industry funding (P = 0.043) and career publications respectively, with the latter not attaining statistical significance (P = 0.12). Overall, research-specific funding (P = 0.014) and higher funding amounts (P < 0.0001) correlated with higher Hirsch indices in tandem with higher academic rank. A funding level of $2000 appeared to be the approximate cutoff above which scholastic productivity became apparent. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated in detail the association between industry funding and academic bibliometrics in academic plastic surgery of every subspecialty. Even at modest amounts, industry support, especially when research designated, positively influenced research and therefore, academic output.

Identifying Sources of Funding That Contribute to Scholastic Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Scholastic productivity has previously been shown to be positively associated with National Institute of Health (NIH) grants and industry funding. This study examines whether society, industry, or federal funding contributes toward academic productivity as measured by scholastic output of academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: Institution Web sites were used to acquire academic attributes of full-time academic plastic surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database, NIH reporter, the Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF), and American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) Web sites were accessed for funding and endowment details. Bibliometric data of each surgeon were then collected via Scopus to ascertain strengths of association with each source. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify significant contributors to high scholastic output. RESULTS: We identified 935 academic plastic surgeons with 94 (10.1%), 24 (2.6%), 724 (77.4%), and 62 (6.6%) receiving funding from PSF, AAPS, industry, and NIH, respectively. There were positive correlations in receiving NIH, PSF, and/or AAPS funding (P < 0.001), whereas industry funding was found to negatively associate with PSF (r = -0.75, P = 0.022) grants. The NIH R award was consistently found to be the most predictive of academic output across bibliometrics, followed by the AAPS academic scholarship award. Conventional measures of academic seniority remained predictive across all measures used. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates for the first time interactions between industry, federal, and association funding. The NIH R award was the strongest determinant of high scholastic productivity. Recognition through AAPS academic scholarships seemed to associate with subsequent success in NIH funding.

Cosmetic Surgery: Regulatory Challenges in a Global Beauty Market.

The market for cosmetic surgery tourism is growing with an increase in people travelling abroad for cosmetic surgery. While the reasons for seeking cosmetic surgery abroad may vary the most common reason is financial, but does cheaper surgery abroad carry greater risks? We explore the risks of poorly regulated cosmetic surgery to society generally before discussing how harm might be magnified in the context of cosmetic tourism, where the demand for cheaper surgery drives the market and makes surgery accessible for increasing numbers of people. This contributes to the normalisation of surgical enhancement, creating unhealthy cultural pressure to undergo invasive and risky procedures in the name of beauty. In addressing the harms of poorly regulated surgery, a number of organisations purport to provide a register of safe and ethical plastic surgeons, yet this arguably achieves little and in the absence of improved regulation the risks are likely to grow as the global market expands to meet demand. While the evidence suggests that global regulation is needed, the paper concludes that since a global regulatory response is unlikely, more robust domestic regulation may be the best approach. While domestic regulation may increase the drive towards foreign providers it may also have a symbolic effect which will reduce this drive by making people more aware of the dangers of surgery, both to society and individual physical wellbeing.

Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest patients are seeking aesthetic surgery to improve their appearance on Instagram and other social media. Despite the rising influence of Instagram in plastic surgery, few academic publications address Instagram, let alone evaluate its utilization in plastic surgery. OBJECTIVES: We set out to answer the following three questions: 1) what plastic surgery-related content is being posted to Instagram; 2) who is posting this content; and 3) what specific hashtags are they using? METHODS: Our study queried 21 Instagram plastic surgery-related hashtags. Content analysis was used to qualitatively evaluate each of the nine "top" posts associated with each hashtag (189 posts). Duplicate posts and those not relevant to plastic surgery were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 1,789,270 posts utilized the 21 hashtags sampled in this study. Of the top 189 posts for these 21 queried hashtags, 163 posts met inclusion criteria. Plastic surgeons eligible for membership in American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) accounted for only 17.8% of top posts, whereas noneligible physicians accounted for 26.4%. All nonplastic surgery trained physicians marketed themselves as "cosmetic surgeons." Nine top posts (5.5%) were by nonphysicians, including dentists, spas with no associated physician, and a hair salon. The majority of these posts were self-promotional (67.1%) as opposed to educational (32.9%). Board-certified plastic surgeons were significantly more likely to post educational content to Instagram as compared to nonplastic surgeons (62.1% vs 38.1%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: ASAPS eligible board-certified plastic surgeons are underrepresented amongst physicians posting top plastic surgery-related content to Instagram.

The Top 100 Social Media Influencers in Plastic Surgery on Twitter: Who Should You Be Following?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies demonstrate that board-certified plastic surgeons are underrepresented amongst individuals posting public-directed marketing plastic surgery-related content on Instagram. However, peer-to-peer and education-based social media influence has not been studied. Twitter is a social media platform has been suggested to be useful for educating the masses and connecting with colleagues. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to identify the top influencers in plastic surgery on Twitter, characterize who they are, and relate their social media influence to academic influence. METHODS: Twitter influence scores for the topic search "plastic surgery" were collected in July 2017 using Right Relevance software. The accounts associated with the highest influencer scores were linked to individual names, status as a plastic surgeon, board certification, location, and academic h-index. RESULTS: The top 100 Twitter influencers in plastic surgery are presented. Seventy-seven percent of the top influencers are trained as plastic surgeons or facial plastic surgeons. Sixty-one percent of influencers are board-certified plastic surgeons or board-eligible/future eligible trainees. International plastic surgeons made up 16% of influencers. Other medical doctors made up another 10%. The other 13% of influencers were nonphysicians. Three-quarters of social media influencers were physically located in the United States. Academic h-index of social media influencers ranged from 0 to 62 (mean, 8.6). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the top plastic surgery social media influencers on Twitter are predominantly board-certified or eligible plastic surgeons and physically based in the United States. This study also provides the influencer network for other plastic surgeons to engage with to improve their own influence within the plastic surgery social media sphere.

The Dawn of Transparency: Insights from the Physician Payment Sunshine Act in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PSSA) is a government initiative that requires all biomedical companies to publicly disclose payments to physicians through the Open Payments Program (OPP). The goal of this study was to use the OPP database and evaluate all nonresearch-related financial transactions between plastic surgeons and biomedical companies. METHODS: Using the first wave of OPP data published on September 30, 2014, we studied the national distribution of industry payments made to plastic surgeons during a 5-month period. We explored whether a plastic surgeon's scientific productivity (as determined by their h-index), practice setting (private versus academic), geographic location, and subspecialty were associated with payment amount. RESULTS: Plastic surgeons (N = 4195) received a total of US $5,278,613. The median (IQR) payment to a plastic surgeon was US $115 (US $35-298); mean, US $158. The largest payment to an individual was US $341,384. The largest payment category was non-CEP speaker fees (US $1,709,930) followed by consulting fees (US $1,403,770). Plastic surgeons in private practice received higher payments per surgeon compared with surgeons in academic practice (median [IQR], US $165 [US $81-$441] vs median [IQR], US $112 [US $33-$291], rank-sum P < 0.001). Among academic plastic surgeons, a higher h-index was associated with 77% greater chance of receiving at least US $1000 in total payments (RR/10 unit h-index increase = 1.47 1.772.11, P < 0.001). This association was not seen among plastic surgeons in private practice (RR = 0.89 1.091.32, P < 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons in private practice receive higher payments from industry. Among academic plastic surgeons, higher payments were associated with higher h-indices.

A Primer on Social Media for Plastic Surgeons: What Do I Need to Know About Social Media and How Can It Help My Practice?

Social media has changed the way plastic surgeons interact with their colleagues, patients, and friends. Social media is a rapidly changing phenomenon that it is critical to plastic surgeons and their practice. Plastic surgery can be marketed directly to consumers and therefore social media can provide a valuable platform to interact with potential patients and to define a surgeon's expertise and practice online. Social media impacts search engine optimization algorithms, increasing web traffic to a surgeon's site, and it can affect patients' perceptions of the practice and surgeon. Social media is a powerful tool, but it should be harnessed wisely to avoid potential pitfalls. This article provides an overview of social media, an outline of resources for surgeons to use, and some tips and tricks for new users.

Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship Selection Criteria: A National Fellowship Director Survey.

BACKGROUND: Desirable candidate characteristics for aesthetic surgery fellowship applicants remain unknown because of a lack of data in the literature. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify the criteria used to select applicants for aesthetic surgery fellowship in the United States. METHODS: A 38-question survey was sent in April 2015 to all directors of fellowships endorsed by the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (n = 20) in the United States. The survey investigated various factors including residency training and fellowship interview. A 5-point Likert scale was used to grade 33 influential factors from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("essential"); a separate 5-point Likert scale was used for 5 controversial factors from 1 ("very negative impact") to 5 ("very positive impact"). RESULTS: Sixty-five percent (13 out of 20) of directors responsed. The most important factors were letters of recommendation by well-established plastic surgeons (4.6 ± 0.7), interpersonal skills (4.5 ± 0.8), overall interview performance (4.5 ± 0.7), professionalism and ethics (4.4 ± 1.0), and letters of recommendation by aesthetic surgeons (4.4 ± 1.2). The least important factors were Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership (1.8 ± 0.6), postgraduate degrees (1.9 ± 0.9), US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK)/Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 Cognitive Evaluation and USMLE/COMLEX Step 3 score (1.9 ± 0.9), and research fellowships (2.0 ± 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides data on the aesthetic surgery fellowship directors' perceptions about the criteria important for applicant selection. We trust that fellowship directors, residency programs, and applicants find this data useful as they prepare for the aesthetic surgery fellowship match.

The Value of a Resident Aesthetic Clinic: A 7-Year Institutional Review and Survey of the Chief Resident Experience.

BACKGROUND: With the evolving plastic surgery training paradigm, there is an increasing emphasis on aesthetic surgery education during residency. In an effort to improve aesthetic education and to encourage preparation for independent practice, our institution has supported a resident-run aesthetic clinic for over two decades. OBJECTIVES: To provide insight into the educational benefits of a resident-run cosmetic clinic through longitudinal resident follow up and institutional experiential review. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted to identify all clinic-based aesthetic operations performed between 2009 and 2016. To capture residents' perspectives on the cosmetic resident clinic, questionnaires were distributed to the cohort. Primary outcome measures included: volume and types of cases performed, impact of clinic experience on training, confidence level performing cosmetic procedures, and satisfaction with chief clinic. Unpaired t tests were calculated to compare case volume/type with level of confidence and degree of preparedness to perform cosmetic procedures independently. RESULTS: Overall, 264 operations performed by 18 graduated chief residents were reviewed. Surveys were distributed to 28 chief residents (71.4% completion rate). Performing twenty or more clinic-based procedures was associated with higher levels of preparedness to perform cosmetic procedures independently (P = 0.037). Residents reported the highest confidence when performing cosmetic breast procedures when compared to face/neck (P = 0.005), body/trunk procedures (P = 0.39), and noninvasive facial procedures (P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The continued growth of aesthetic surgery highlights the need for comprehensive training and preparation for the new generation of plastic surgeons. Performing cosmetic procedures in clinic is a valuable adjunct to the traditional educational curriculum and increases preparedness and confidence for independent practice.

The Effect of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Plastic Surgery Literature.

Medical research has a long history of joint venture between commercial entities and nonindustry researchers. Significant concern exists among accrediting bodies for medical education and federal granting agencies that conflicts of interest (COIs) exist that affect the validity of the research. This study evaluates the legitimacy of this concern.All clinical breast and cosmetic articles in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Plastic Surgery were reviewed for calendar year 2013. If a financial disclosure was present, the article was then reviewed to determine if the subject/findings were in favor of the commercial conflict and, if so, whether the study was valid. To assess plastic surgery versus other specialties, articles from Dermatology and Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery were similarly reviewed from January to April of 2013.Two hundred seventy-two clinical articles were reviewed. Only 15 (5.5%) had a true COI: the article's findings favored the commercial interest of at least 1 author: for each journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 7.7%; Annals of Plastic Surgery, 3.3%; Dermatology, 2.2%; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 7.5%. Conflicts of interest were not statistically significant between pooled articles of plastic surgery versus dermatology/orthopedics. However, COI was statistically greater (P = 0.05) in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery compared with Annals and Dermatology.Despite public and regulatory concerns, this assessment demonstrates that the peer-review process of leading journals polices true COIs. Published articles provide sound research despite presumed COIs. As such, the integrity and validity of published research remain high.

Procedural Portfolio Planning in Plastic Surgery, Part 2: Collaboration Between Surgeons and Hospital Administrators to Develop a Funds Flow Model for Procedures Performed at an Academic Medical Center.

INTRODUCTION: Although plastic surgeons make important contributions to the clinical, educational, and research missions of academic medical centers (AMCs), determining the financial value of a plastic surgery service can be difficult, due to complex cost accounting systems. We analyzed the financial impact of plastic surgery on an AMC, by examining the contribution margins and operating income of surgical procedures. METHODS: We collaborated with hospital administrators to implement 3 types of strategic changes: (1) growth of areas with high contribution margin, (2) curtailment of high-risk procedures with negative contribution margin, (3) improved efficiency of mission-critical services with high resource consumption. Outcome measures included: facility charges, hospital collections, contribution margin, operating margin, and operating room times. We also studied the top 50 Current Procedural Terminology codes (total case number × charge/case), ranking procedures for profitability, as determined by operating margin. During the 2-year study period, we had no turnover in faculty; did not pursue any formal marketing; did not change our surgical fees, billing system, or payer mix; and maintained our commitment to indigent care. RESULTS: After rebalancing our case mix, through procedural portfolio planning, average hospital operating income/procedure increased from $-79 to $+816. Volume and diversity of cases increased, with no change in payer mix. Although charges/case decreased, both contribution margin and operating margin increased, due to improved throughput and decreased operating room times. The 5 most profitable procedures for the hospital were hernia repair, mandibular osteotomy, hand skin graft, free fibula flap, and head and neck flap, whereas the 5 least profitable were latissimus breast reconstruction, craniosynostosis repair, free-flap breast reconstruction, trunk skin graft, and cutaneous free flap. Total operating income for the hospital, from plastic surgery procedures, increased from $-115,103 to $+1,277,040, of which $350,000 (25%) was returned to the practice plan as enterprise funds to support program development. CONCLUSIONS: Through focused strategic initiatives, plastic surgeons and hospital administrators can work together to unlock the latent value of a plastic surgery service to an AMC. Specific financial benefits to the hospital include increased contribution margin and operating income, the latter of which can be reinvested in the plastic surgery service through a gain-sharing model.

The Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Plastic Surgery: Are They All Created Equal?

BACKGROUND: Recently, several studies have demonstrated that articles that disclose conflicts of interests (COI) are associated with publication of positive results. The purpose of this study was to learn more about the different types of COI as they relate to the general topic of COI in plastic surgery. Specifically, we aimed to examine whether different types of COI are more likely than others to be associated with the presentation of positive findings. METHODS: We reviewed all original articles in Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2013. All scientific articles were analyzed, and several article characteristics were extracted. Disclosed COI were categorized into the following categories: consultant/employee, royalties/stock options, and research support. The findings reported in each article abstract were blindly graded as reporting a positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable result. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine whether an association existed between certain types of COI and publication of positive conclusions. RESULTS: A total of 3124 articles were identified of which 1185 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Financial COI were reported in 153 studies (12.9%). The most common type of COI was "research support" (7.3%), whereas the least common was "royalties/stock options" (1.2%). Rates of different types of COI varied significantly by plastic surgery subspecialty field (P < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, authors who disclosed COI related to research support, consultant/employee, and royalties/stock options were 1.31, 6.62, and 8.72 times more likely, respectively, to publish positive findings when compared with authors that disclosed no COI after correcting for potential confounding factors. However, consultancy/employee status was the only COI category statistically associated with publication of positive results (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported COI are uncommon in plastic surgery research. Our results provide evidence that certain types of financial COI are more likely than others to be associated with the presentation of positive findings. This analysis suggests that certain investigators may be more biased, consciously or unconsciously, by the type of financial benefit offered by industry.

Maxillomandibular Fixation by Plastic Surgeons: Cost Analysis and Utilization of Resources.

PURPOSE: Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) can be performed using various techniques. Two common approaches used are arch bars and bone screws. Arch bars are the gold standard and inexpensive, but often require increased procedure time. Bone screws with wire fixation is a popular alternative, but more expensive than arch bars. The differences in costs of care, complications, and operative times between these 2 techniques are analyzed. METHODS: A chart review was conducted on patients treated over the last 12 years at our institution. Forty-four patients with CPT code 21453 (closed reduction of mandible fracture with interdental fixation) with an isolated mandible fracture were used in our data collection. The operating room (OR) costs, procedure duration, and complications for these patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Operative times were significantly shorter for patients treated with bone screws (P < 0.002). The costs for one trip to the OR for either method of fixation did not show any significant differences (P < 0.840). More patients with arch bar fixation (62%) required a second trip to the OR for removal in comparison to those with screw fixation (31%) (P < 0.068). This additional trip to the OR added significant cost. There were no differences in patient complications between these 2 fixation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The MMF with bone screws represents an attractive alternative to fixation with arch bars in appropriate scenarios. Screw fixation offers reduced costs, fewer trips to the OR, and decreased operative duration without a difference in complications. Cost savings were noted most significantly in a decreased need for secondary procedures in patients who were treated with MMF screws. Screw fixation offers potential for reducing the costs of care in treating patients with minimally displaced or favorable mandible fractures.