The Digital Footprint of Academic Plastic Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: The digital age and global pandemic have transformed the way patients select their plastic surgeon. However, as more patients turn to online resources, there is little information on the digital presence of academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: We identified all academic faculty from integrated and independent plastic surgery residency programs. Using a Google-based custom search, the top 10 search results for each surgeon were extracted and categorized as surgeon noncontrolled (eg, physician rating websites) or controlled (eg, social media, institutional, and research profiles). RESULTS: Eight hundred four academic plastic surgeons were included. Most search results were surgeon-noncontrolled sites (57%, n = 4547). Being male (odds ratio [OR], 0.60, P = 0.0020) and holding a higher academic rank (OR = 0.61, P < 0.0001) significantly decreased the prevalence of physician rating websites, whereas career length was significantly associated with a greater number of rating websites (OR = 1.04, P < 0.0001). Surgeon-controlled websites were significantly influenced by academic rank and years in practice; higher academic rank was associated with more social media platforms (OR = 1.42, P = 0.0008), institutional webpages (OR = 1.57, P < 0.0001), and research profiles (OR = 1.62, P = 0.0008). Conversely, longer career duration was a predictor for fewer social media platforms (OR = 0.95, P < 0.0001) and institutional webpages (OR = 0.95, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Academic plastic surgeons do not hold control of the majority of their search results. However, digitally savvy plastic surgeons can focus attention by building on certain areas to optimize their digital footprint. This study can serve as a guide for academic plastic surgeons wishing to control their online presence.

The Orthopaedic Match: Defining the Academic Profile of Successful Candidates.

BACKGROUND: Research productivity forms a vital part of the resident selection process and can markedly affect the chance of a successful match. Current reports regarding the publication record among prospective orthopaedic surgery residents are likely inaccurate. Potential applicants have a poor understanding of the strength of their research credentials in comparison to other candidates. METHODS: We identified matched applicants from the 2013 to 2017 orthopaedic surgery residency application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis of these residents using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify published articles and calculate the h-index of each applicant at the time of application. Details were collected on medical school, advanced degrees, publication type, first authorship, and article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: We included 3,199 matched orthopaedic surgery applicants. At the time of application, the median h-index was 0, the median number of publications was 1, and 40% of successful candidates did not hold any publications. The h-index (R 0.08, P < 0.0001) and median number of publications of matched orthopaedic surgery residency candidates significantly increased (R 0.09, P < 0.0001) across application cycles. Furthermore, the proportion of matched applicants without publications at the time of application significantly decreased (R -0.90, P = 0.0350). Conversely, the percentage of articles first-authored by applicants decreased (R -0.96, P = 0.0093), but article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery remained constant (R 0.82, P = 0.0905). Strikingly, notable changes were observed in the type of articles published by successful applicants: the proportion of preclinical studies decreased (R -0.07, P = 0.0041), whereas clinical research articles increased (R 0.07, P = 0.0024). CONCLUSION: The publication count held by successful orthopaedic surgery applicants is substantially lower than the nationally reported average. Matched orthopaedic surgery candidates demonstrate increasingly impressive research achievements each application cycle. However, increased academic productivity comes at the cost of reduced project responsibility and a shift toward faster-to-publish articles.

A review of the outcomes of children with designated additional needs receiving cochlear implantation for severe to profound hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate one year outcomes of children with additional needs receiving cochlear implantation at the Yorkshire Auditory Implant Service (YAIS) over a ten-year period. METHODS: Retrospective chart review yielded 270 children who received cochlear implants (CIs) at YAIS between 2007 and 2017; 49 children were classified as having additional needs. Audiological performance scales (Meaningful Auditory Information Scale (MAIS), Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS), Listening in Progress (LIP), Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP), and Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale (SIR)) were analysed pre- and 12 months post-implantation. Comparison was made with children without additional needs. RESULTS: Children with additional needs demonstrated significantly lower pre-implantation audiological performance in MAIS, LIP, and MUSS (P <0.05). Despite showing improvement, children with additional needs consistently achieved lower scores in all metrics at one year (P < 0.05). Similarly, the rate of change was statistically significantly lower in children with additional needs. CONCLUSION: All children were able to gain access to sound following CI. Improvements were seen in all outcome measures especially in the MAIS, CAP and LIP whereas limited improvement was seen in measures assessing speech production and improvement. The rate of improvement was statistically significantly lower in children with additional needs.

Navigating the Insurance Landscape for Coverage of Reduction Mammaplasty.

BACKGROUND: Reduction mammaplasty provides symptomatic relief to patients with macromastia. Insurance companies act as gatekeepers of health care by determining the medical necessity of surgical procedures, including reduction mammaplasty. The authors sought to evaluate insurance coverage and policy criteria for reduction mammaplasty. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. insurance policies on reduction mammaplasty. Insurance providers were selected based on their enrolment data and market share. The authors conducted telephone interviews and Web-based searches to identify the policies. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from the publicly available policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: The authors reviewed 63 insurers. One in 10 insurers had no established policy for reduction mammaplasty. Of the 48 publicly available policies, shoulder pain and backache were the most common symptoms required for preapproval (98 percent and 98 percent). A minimum resection volume was requested by 88 percent of policies. One-third of policies (31 percent) offered a choice between removal of a minimum weight per breast or a volume based on body surface area. Over half of companies (54 percent) used body surface area calculations to predict minimum resection volume. Medical necessity that extended beyond national recommendations included trial of weight loss (23 percent) and nipple position (10 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Insurance policy criteria for reduction mammaplasty are discordant with current national recommendations and current clinical evidence. Many policies use outdated criteria that do not correlate with symptom relief and consequently limit access to reduction mammaplasty. Here, the authors propose a comprehensive guideline to maximize coverage of reduction mammaplasty.

The Glass Ceiling in Plastic Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Gender Gap in Career Advancement.

BACKGROUND: Gender parity remains elusive in academic plastic surgery. It is unknown whether this disparity is attributable to differences in qualifications or to the glass ceiling of gender bias. To parse this, the authors compared academic titles and departmental leadership of female academic plastic surgeons to a matched group of their male counterparts. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of academic plastic surgeons. The authors identified faculty, sex, academic rank, and leadership positions from plastic surgery residency program websites. The authors then collected details on training institution, advanced degrees, years in practice, and h-index for use as independent variables. The authors performed a propensity score analysis to 1:1 match male and female academic plastic surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 818 academic plastic surgeons were included. The cohort was predominately male [n = 658 (81 percent)], with a median 12 years in practice and a median h-index of 9. Before matching, men had more years in practice (13 years versus 9 years; p < 0.0001), a greater h-index (11 versus 5; p < 0.0001), were more likely to be professors (34 percent versus 13 percent; p < 0.0001), and held more leadership positions than women (41 percent versus 30 percent; p = 0.0221). Following matching, gender parity was demonstrated in academic rank and departmental leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in training, qualifications, career length, and academic productivity may account for the leadership gap in academic plastic surgery. Gendered difficulties in reaching qualification benchmarks must be addressed before gender parity in promotion can be achieved.