Influence of Residency Training on Research Productivity and Plastic Surgery Career.

BACKGROUND: The impact of residency training on academic productivity and a career in academic plastic surgery remains uncertain. Previous literature has explored the influence of training institutions on academic careers in surgery. The aims of the study were to assess research productivity during plastic surgery residency training and to illustrate how differences in training programs impact resident research productivity. METHODS: Academic plastic surgery faculty that graduated in the past 10 years were identified through an Internet search of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency and fellowship training programs. Research productivity was compared based on h-index, number, and quality of peer-reviewed articles published during residency. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-five academic plastic surgeons were identified and produced 2487 publications during residency. The 10 most productive training institutions were Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, University of Michigan, Stanford, University of California Los Angeles, Northwestern, Harvard, New York University, University of Pennsylvania, and Baylor. Academic productivity was higher among integrated residents (integrated = 8.68 publications, independent = 5.49 publications, P < 0.0001). The number of publications positively correlated to faculty size (r = 0.167, P = 0.0013), National Institute of Health (NIH) funding (r = 0.249, P < 0.0001), residency graduation year (r = 0.211, P < 0.0001), and negatively correlated with Doximity ranking (r = -0.294, P < 0.0001). H-index was positively correlated with number of publications (r = 0.622, P < 0.0001), faculty size (r = 0.295, P < 0.0001), and NIH funding (r = 0.256, P < 0.0001) and negatively correlated with Doximity ranking (r = -0.405, P < 0.0001) and residency graduation year (r = -0.163, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study has found that there is an elite cohort of programs that are the most productive research institutions. Resident research productivity is higher among integrated residents, recent graduates, and programs that are larger in size, with a higher Doximity ranking and NIH funding. This study can guide medical students and future applicants who are interested in a career in academic plastic surgery in the selection of programs that match their career aspirations.

The Relationship of Residency and Fellowship Sites to Academic Faculty and Leadership Positions.

BACKGROUND: After completion of training, a physician's training institution has a lasting and meaningful impact on career trajectory. Training program influence on first job placement and academic promotions remain uncertain in academic plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of training and internal bias in academic plastic surgery employment and promotion. METHODS: Academic plastic surgery faculty were identified through an internet search of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency training programs. Faculty demographics, training background, employment, and leadership status were gathered. The analysis examined the impact of internal recruitment bias on first job employment, the impact of training history on institutional leadership promotion (chair/chief, residency director, or fellowship director), and the impact of alumni effect on academic employment. RESULTS: A significant proportion of recent graduates (38.6%) are practicing at the same institution as where they received residency or fellowship training. Of the 229 institutional leaders, 31.5% of chairs/chiefs, 39.6% of residency directors, and 37.5% of fellowship directors were internal hires. Overall, 34% of plastic surgery faculty in the United States share a common training program with at least 1 colleague. The top 5 programs that have the most faculty who trained at their hiring institution are Harvard (30 faculty), University of Southern California (15 faculty), University of California Los Angeles (12 faculty), University of Michigan (12 faculty), and Albert Einstein (12 faculty). Overall, 54% of plastic surgery departments employ 2 or more faculty who share a common external training program. The top 5 programs that have the most faculty who share an external training program are (1) Methodist Houston, 8 faculty who trained at Baylor; (2) Hofstra, 7 faculty who trained at New York University; (3) Stanford, 6 faculty who trained at University of California, Los Angeles; (4) Wisconsin, 5 faculty who trained at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; and (5) University of Southern California, 4 faculty who trained at New York University. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights that an internal bias exists in the recruitment for first jobs and leadership promotions. However, a clear bias of internal hiring exists at several institutions. In addition, an alumni effect was identified, where some programs have a bias of hiring faculty who trained at the same external institution.

Delayed Hypersensitivity Reaction after Nipple Tattooing: A Novel Case Report.

We present a patient who underwent bilateral 3-dimensional (3D) nipple tattooing for nipple areolar reconstruction after implant-based breast reconstruction for breast cancer. Several weeks after nipple tattooing, the patient developed a delayed hypersensitivity reaction around both of her tattooed nipple areolar complexes. This is the first case reported in the literature of a hypersensitivity reaction from 3D nipple tattooing.