Functional donor-site morbidity following reconstruction with pectoralis major flaps: A systematic review.

Background: Pectoralis major muscle/myocutaneous flaps (PMMFs) are commonly used in reconstructive surgery, but may result in shoulder disability on the donor side. A systematic review evaluating this morbidity could be beneficial for guiding patients and providers considering this procedure. Methods: In October 2022, a systematic review of studies evaluating quantitative/qualitative measures of functional morbidity after PMMF was conducted. The results were categorized into PMMF's effect on range of motion (ROM), strength, and ability to complete shoulder-related activities/quality of life. Results: Eleven studies were included for analysis, which analyzed standard PMMF and two PMMF variants that spared portions of the muscle. Three of five studies demonstrated reduced shoulder ROM for standard PMMF versus controls lasting at least 4 months after head and neck reconstruction. Two of five studies, including two prospective studies demonstrated reduced shoulder strength for standard PMMF versus controls lasting at least 3 months after surgery. Five of nine studies found significant impairment in the ability to conduct shoulder-related activities, including work, up to one year postoperatively for standard PMMF versus controls. Muscle-sparing PMMF variants exhibited more promising outcomes in some categories. Conclusion: Standard PMMF results in prolonged reductions in shoulder ROM and strength, which may impair patients in shoulder-related activities. Other reconstructive options should be considered in patients who frequently participate in such activities. For patients requiring PMMF, muscle-sparing PMMF variants should be considered as alternatives to the standard PMMF.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Weighing the risks of delayed chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with unilateral breast cancer opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of therapeutic mastectomy (immediate CPM) or following completion of adjuvant therapy. Studies show that immediate CPM increases the risk of surgical complications related to unilateral mastectomy (UM) alone, which may lead to delays in adjuvant therapy initiation. However, it is unclear if these complications cause clinically significant delays in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with breast cancer who underwent immediate CPM versus UM alone at Columbia University Medical Center from January 2000 to December 2020. Patient demographic and oncologic characteristics; complications; and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or hormonal therapy relative to therapeutic mastectomy were collected. RESULTS: In this study, 239 UM alone patients were propensity score matched to 239 immediate CPM patients. No significant difference in complication rates was found between the index and contralateral breasts in CPM patients. A similar percentage of CPM and UM patients experienced postoperative complications (19% vs. 17%, p = 0.64). No significant difference in time to adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy was found between CPM patients with complications and all CPM patients or all UM patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of clear guidance for clinical decision-making regarding timing of CPM relative to adjuvant therapy. Our study suggests that immediate CPM does not significantly increase the risks of postoperative complications or complication-related delays in the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy. This information may help patients and providers to plan, select, and schedule breast cancer treatment options.

Lymphatic Microsurgical Preventive Healing Approach for the Primary Prevention of Lymphedema: A 4-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) remains the leading cause of lymphedema nationally, and there is still no cure for the disease. The lymphatic microsurgical preventive healing approach (LYMPHA) is a promising option for lymphedema prophylaxis in patients undergoing ALND, but long-term outcomes of the LYMPHA are not well established. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing ALND at their center from November of 2012 to November of 2016 and assembled two cohorts, those who received the LYMPHA and those who did not (non-LYMPHA). Patient data were collected to evaluate lymphedema risk and long-term lymphedema incidence of each group. RESULTS: Forty-five women were included in both our LYMPHA and non-LYMPHA cohorts. Mean body mass index (27.7 kg/m2 versus 29.9 kg/m2; P = 0.15) and radiation therapy rates (60.0% versus 68.9%; P = 0.51) did not differ between groups. Non-LYMPHA patients underwent complete mastectomy more frequently than LYMPHA patients (97.8% versus 77.8%; P = 0.007), but had a similar number of nodes removed during ALND (14.4 versus 15.8; P = 0.32). Median follow-up time was greater than 4 years for both LYMPHA and non-LYMPHA groups (57.0 months versus 63.0 months; P = 0.07). Overall, lymphedema incidence was 31.1% in the LYMPHA group and 33.3% in the non-LYMPHA group (P > 0.99). No significant differences in lymphedema incidences were observed between the LYMPHA and non-LYMPHA groups for patients with obesity, patients who received radiation therapy, or patients with obesity who also received radiation therapy (P > 0.05 for all subgroups). CONCLUSIONS: The LYMPHA may not prevent lymphedema long-term in patients who undergo ALND. More long-term studies are needed to determine the true potential of the procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Complications Associated with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: No meta-analysis has examined whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increases complication risk for unilateral breast cancer patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy. METHODS: Fifteen studies on complications of unilateral mastectomy plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses compared complications of (1) diseased versus contralateral breasts in unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy patients and (2) patients undergoing unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral alone when grouped by reconstructive method. RESULTS: For all unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy patients, the diseased breast was significantly more prone to complications versus the contralateral breast (relative risk, 1.24; p = 0.03). In studies that stratified by reconstructive method, the complication risk was significantly higher for unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomy alone for patients with no reconstruction (relative risk, 2.03; p = 0.0003), prosthetic-based reconstruction (relative risk,1.42; p = 0.003), and autologous reconstruction (relative risk, 1.32; p = 0.005). The only prospective trial showed similar results, including for more severe complications. Smaller retrospective studies without stratification by reconstructive method showed similar complications for unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomy alone (relative risk, 1.06; p = 0.70). These groups had similar incidences of complication-related delay in adjuvant therapy, as demonstrated by one study. CONCLUSIONS: After unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, diseased breasts are at higher risk for complications. Stronger evidence supports higher complication risk for unilateral plus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy than unilateral alone. More work is needed to determine the effect of complications on timing of adjuvant therapy.

Leadership Roles, Academic Appointments, and Scholarly Activity-Does a Fellowship after Plastic Surgery Training Make a Difference?

Background Fellowship training is becoming more popular in plastic surgery, with over half of residents pursuing advanced training. Here, we investigate how clinical and research fellowship training impacts career trajectory and scholastic achievement in academic plastic surgery. Methods Plastic surgery faculty members, from programs recognized by the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons, were identified using institutional Web sites. Data extracted included faculty demographics, training history, academic positions, and research productivity. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using t -tests and chi-square, respectively. Results In total, 949 faculty members were included, with 657 (69%) having completed fellowship training. Integrated program residents were more likely to complete a fellowship when compared with independent residents ( p < 0.0001). Fellowship trained faculty were more likely to have graduated from a higher ranked residency program, in terms of both overall and research reputation ( p = 0.005 and p = 0.016, respectively). When controlling for years in practice, there was no difference found in number of publications, Hirsch index (h-index), or National Institutes of Health funding between faculty between the two cohorts ( p > 0.05). In a subanalysis comparing hand, craniofacial, microsurgery, and research fellowships, those who completed a research fellowship had higher h-indices and were more likely to reach full professor status ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Fellowship training had no effect on being promoted to Chief/Chair of departments ( p = 0.16). Conclusion Fellowship training is common among academic plastic surgeons. In this study, both clinical and research fellowships were associated with various aspects of academic success. However, fellowship training alone did not affect attainment of leadership positions.

Disparities in Research during Plastic Surgery Training: How Can We Level the Playing Field?

Background: Lack of female and ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) surgeons remains concerning in academic plastic surgery. One barrier to inclusion may be unequal opportunity to publish research. This study evaluates the extent of this challenge for plastic surgery trainees and identifies potential solutions. Methods: Data were collected on academic plastic surgeons' research productivity during training. Bivariate analysis compared publication measures between genders and race/ethnicities at different training stages (pre-residency/residency/clinical fellowship). Multivariate analysis determined training experiences independently associated with increased research productivity. Results: Overall, women had fewer total publications than men during training (8.89 versus 12.46, P = 0.0394). Total publications were similar between genders before and during residency (P > 0.05 for both) but lower for women during fellowship (1.32 versus 2.48, P = 0.0042). Women had a similar number of first-author publications during training (3.97 versus 5.24, P = 0.1030) but fewer middle-author publications (4.70 versus 6.81, P = 0.0405). UIM and non-UIM individuals had similar productivity at all training stages and authorship positions (P > 0.05 for all). Research fellowship completion was associated with increased total, first-, and middle-author training publications (P < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Less research productivity for female plastic surgery trainees may reflect a disparity in opportunity to publish. Fewer middle-author publications could indicate challenges with network-building in a predominately male field. Despite comparable research productivity during training relative to non- UIM individuals, UIM individuals remain underrepresented in academic plastic surgery. Creating research fellowships for targeting underrepresented groups could help overcome these challenges.

Closing the Gap: Training Experiences and Career Outcomes for Underrepresented Minorities in Plastic Surgery.

Background: The present study assesses training characteristics, scholastic achievements, and traditional career accomplishments of ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) faculty relative to non-UIM PRS faculty. Method: A cross-sectional analysis of core PRS faculty appointed to accredited United States residency training programs (n = 99) was performed. Results: Of the 949 US PRS faculty, a total of 51 (5.4%) were identified as UIM. Compared with non-UIM faculty, there were few differences when evaluating medical education, residency training, pursuit of advanced degrees, and attainment of subspecialty fellowship training. UIM faculty were more likely than non-UIM faculty to have graduated from a medical school outside the United States (25% versus 13%, P = 0.014). In addition, UIM faculty did not differ from non-UIM counterparts in traditional career accomplishments, including promotion to full professor, obtaining NIH funding, serving as program director, receiving an endowed professorship, appointment to a peer-reviewed editorial board, scholarly contributions (H-index and number of publications), and appointment to chief/chair of their division/department. Conclusions: The historical lack of ethnic diversity that comprise US academic PRS faculty persists. This study reveals that those UIM faculty who are able to obtain faculty appointments are equally successful in achieving scholastic success and traditional career accomplishments as their non-UIM counterparts. As we strive toward increasing representation of UIM physicians in academic plastic surgery, the field will benefit from efforts that promote a pipeline for underrepresented groups who traditionally face barriers to entry.

Identifying US Plastic Surgery Training Programs that Effectively Establish Gender and Ethnically Diverse Faculty.

Background: Successful strategies to improve the representation of female and ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) physicians among US plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) faculty have not been adequately explored. Accordingly, we aimed to identify programs that have had success, and in parallel gather PRS program directors' and chiefs/chairs' perspectives on diversity recruitment intentionality and strategies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the demographic composition of female and UIM faculty of PRS residency training programs. Separate lists of programs in the top quartile for female and UIM faculty representation were collated. Additionally, a 14-question survey was administered to program directors and chiefs/chairs of all 99 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited PRS residency programs. The questions comprised three domains: (1) demographic information; (2) perceptions about diversity; and (3) recruitment strategies utilized to diversify faculty. Results: Female and UIM faculty representation ranged from 0% to 63% and 0% to 50%, respectively. Survey responses were received from program directors and chiefs/chairs of 55 institutions (55% response rate). Twenty-five (43%) respondents felt their program was diverse. Fifty-one (80%) respondents felt diversity was important to the composition of PRS faculty. Active recruitment of diverse faculty and the implementation of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee were among the most frequently cited strategies to establish a culturally sensitive and inclusive environment. Conclusions: These findings reveal that female and UIM representation among US PRS faculty remains insufficient; however, some programs have had success through deliberate and intentional implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies.

Keeping abreast of shark bite reconstruction: a case report and brief literature review.

Shark attack-related injuries (SARIs) are rare but may result in highly complex wounds requiring reconstruction by plastic surgeons. Here, we present an unusual case of SARI of the breast and briefly review literature on reconstructive management of (1) breast injuries from other large animals and (2) SARIs to other parts of the body. Our patient was a 39-year-old woman who experienced massive bilateral breast tissue loss from a shark attack. After primary surgical wound management, including debridement and washout, the patient underwent completion mastectomy with bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Literature review revealed that reports of animal-related injuries to the breast are rare, with ours being the first on SARI to the breast and the only describing major reconstruction of animal-related breast injury. Literature on reconstruction of non-breast SARI wounds is limited to two case reports describing severe tissue damage akin to that seen in our patient, both necessitating extensive debridement followed by reconstruction. Overall, our findings demonstrate the uniquely devastating damage resulting from SARIs and the value of primary wound management and abdominally based free flaps in successfully reconstructing these wounds. Level of evidence: Level V, therapeutic study.

Predictors of Plastic Surgeons Becoming Presidents of National Professional Organizations in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated metrics between academic plastic surgeons that were and were not presidents of national organizations to determine predictors of becoming a president. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective review was performed. Websites were queried of 99 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited plastic surgery residency programs and 17 national organizations. Demographic, academic and scholarly variables we collected from 951 full-time plastic surgery faculty affiliated with the US residency training programs during the 2020-2021 academic year. Of these full-time plastic surgery faculty, 879 were non-presidents and 72 were presidents of national organizations (2016-2021 = 42, < 2016 = 30). RESULTS: Plastic surgeons were more likely to become president if they were an officer/director of the American Board of Plastic Surgeons (ABPS) (OR: 16.67, 95%CI: 5.83, 47.66; p < 0.001), chief/chair of a division/department (OR: 3.10, 95%CI: 1.09, 8.79; p = 0.033), endowed (OR: 5.45, 95%CI:1.65, 18.04; p = 0.006), National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded (OR: 4.57, 95%CI: 1.24, 16.88; p = 0.023), affiliated with an integrated plastic surgery residency program (OR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27, 12.33; p = 0.018), and with a greater number of years in practice (OR: 1.09, 95%CI: 1.04, 1.14; p < 0.001). Additionally, plastic surgeons were more likely to become president between 2016 and 2021 with a research fellowship (OR: 7.41, 95%CI: 1.02, 52.63; p = 0.047), first author publications (OR: 1.72, 95%CI: 1.63, 1.83; p < 0.001), and last author publications (OR: 1.60, 95%CI: 1.56, 1.65; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons were more likely to become president of a national organization if they were an officer/director of the ABPS, chief/chair of a division/department, endowed, NIH funded, affiliated with an integrated plastic surgery residency program, greater number of years in practice, research fellowship, and first and last author publications. Predictors may guide those interested in becoming president of a national organization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Department Versus Division: An In-Depth Analysis of Units of Plastic Surgery and Other Surgical Specialties at Their Institutions.

ABSTRACT: An increasing number of plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) units have transitioned from divisions to departments in recent years. This study aimed to identify quantifiable differences that may reflect challenges and benefits associated with each type of unit. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of publicly-available data on characteristics of academic medical institutions housing PRS units, faculty size of surgical units within these institutions, and academic environments of PRS units themselves. Univariate analysis compared PRS divisions versus departments. Matched-paired testing compared PRS units versus other intra-institutional surgical departments. Compared to PRS divisions (n = 64), departments (n = 22) are at institutions with more surgical departments overall (P = 0.0071), particularly departments that are traditionally divisions within the department of surgery (ie urology). Compared to PRS divisions, PRS departments have faculty size that more closely resembles other intra-institutional surgical departments, especially for full-time surgical faculty and faculty in areas of clinical overlap with other departments like hand surgery. Plastic and reconstructive surgery departments differ from PRS divisions by certain academic measures, including offering more clinical fellowships (P = 0.005), running more basic science laboratories (P = 0.033), supporting more nonclinical research faculty (P = 0.0417), and training residents who produce more publications during residency (P = 0.002). Institutions with PRS divisions may be less favorable environments for surgical divisions to become departments, but other recently-transitioned divisions could provide blueprints for PRS to follow suit. Bolstering full-time surgical faculty numbers and faculty in areas of clinical overlap could be useful for PRS divisions seeking departmental status. Transitioning to department may yield objective academic benefits for PRS units.

Patients and Procedures of Facial Gender Confirmation Surgery: A NSQIP Study.

ABSTRACT: Various recent developments, including legislation in 2014 banning healthcare discrimination against gender minorities, have contributed to expanding insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, which includes facial gender confirmation surgery (FGCS). Increasing evidence suggests FGCS improves quality-of-life outcomes, but literature evaluating FGCS patient demographics, surgical risk factors, procedures, and complications is limited. Therefore, the authors conducted a study of a national surgical database from 2005 to 2019 attempting to fill in these literature gaps. Statistics were used to assess temporal trends after 2014. A total of 203 FGCS cases were identified, with the earliest occurring in 2013. Case volume increased annually from 2015-2019. The average patient age was 34.0 years and racial demographics largely mirrored national estimates for the transgender/non-binary population. Obesity (20.7%) and hypertension (3.9%) were the only patient co-morbidities, although a relatively high proportion were underweight (5.4%). The majority of cases were outpatient procedures (66.5%) conducted by either plastic surgery (38.9%) or otolaryngology (61.1%). Comparing FGCSs by anatomic site, the proportion of tracheal procedures decreased between 2015-17 and 2018-19 (25.6% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.0002) whereas the proportion of brow/forehead reconstructions increased (32.6% versus 63.1%, P = 0.0005). These changes coincided with an increase in mean operative time (168.6 minutes versus 260.0, P = 0.0002). Complications were rare (3.9%), and the most common was surgical site infection (3.4%), a previously unreported outcome in the FGCS literature. Overall, FGCS patients are mostly young healthy individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and they have few surgical complications. The increasing volume and complexity of FGCSs may be a result of expanding insurance coverage for previously unaffordable procedures.

Home Field Advantage: Assessing the Geographic Trends of the Plastic Surgery Residency Match during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: In previous plastic surgery residency match cycles, in-person activities at other institutions, such as away rotations, have facilitated matches outside of an applicant's home program or region. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, limited these in-person opportunities. Therefore, we hypothesized that applicants of the 2021 cycle would be more likely to match into programs with which they have existing geographic connections when compared to previous years. DESIGN: Residency websites and social media accounts were searched for resident names and educational information for those matching in 2021 and 2015 to 2020. Outcomes included proportion of applicants matching at the program affiliated with their medical school ("home program"), or matching in the same state or United States Census Map region as their medical school or undergraduate institution. Subgroup analyses were stratified by program region, incoming resident class size, and Doximity residency reputation ranking. SETTING: Columbia University (New York). PARTICIPANTS: For the 2015 to 2020 residency cycles, 963 residents were identified from 78 (95.1%) programs. For 2021, 159 incoming interns were identified from 70 (82.3%) programs. RESULTS: 2021 applicants matched into their home program at higher rates than 2015-2020 applicants (36.0% vs. 24.1%, p  = 0.019). This trend was similar regardless of program region or size. This increase was significant for programs ranked outside of the top 30 (41.5% vs. 26.4%, p = 0.032), but not for the top 30 programs (32.1% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.128). Excluding those who matched at their home program, 2015 to 2020 and 2021 applicants matched in the same state or region of their medical school or undergraduate institution at similar rates (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, plastic surgery residency programs matched more applicants from affiliated medical schools than in previous years. This may result from lack of in-person opportunities for applicants at other programs. Alternative relationship-building opportunities may facilitate broader geographic connections in the 2022 cycle.

Leaders of the Pack: A Comparison of Chairs and Chiefs to Other Surgeons in American Academic Plastic Surgery.

ABSTRACT: Chairs/chiefs of plastic surgery departments/divisions are responsible for directing activities at academic institutions and thus help determine the direction of academic plastic surgery. Other studies have characterized this group but have not shown which characteristics separate them from other surgeons in the field. To study this relationship, a cross-sectional analysis of plastic surgery faculty affiliated with United States residency training programs (n = 99) was initiated. Data were collected from public online websites. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify factors independently associated with chairs/chief status. Sub-analyses were performed within Tiers stratified by residency program rank of chair/chief's current institution. Among 943 plastic surgeons, 98 chairs/chiefs were identified. In accordance with prior literature, most are male (89%) and fellowship-trained (62%), and they have a median H-index of 17. Compared to other surgeons, chair/chiefs have more years in practice (odds ratio [OR]: 1.026, confidence interval [CI]: 0.002-0.049, P = 0.034), higher H-index (OR: 1.103, CI: 0.048-0.147, P < 0.001), and more citations (OR: 1.000, CI: -0.000 to -0.001, P = 0.006). Chair/chiefs were also more likely to be journal editorial board members (OR: 1.728, CI: -0.033 to 1.127, P = 0.046) and national society/organization presidents (OR: 1.024, CI: 0.008-0.039, P = 0.003). No notable differences were found between department chairs versus division chiefs or across Tiers. Overall, scholarly achievement and significant years of experience distinguish chairs/chiefs in American academic plastic surgery. Criteria for achieving this leadership role may not differ between departments and divisions. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these characteristics translate into more effective leadership.

The 2020 Evidence-Based Promotion Ladder of Academic Plastic Surgery.

Background Metrics were evaluated between academic plastic surgeons from different tiered training programs to determine promotion predictors within tiers and between tiers for those seeking promotion from assistant professor, associate professor, to full professors. Methodology We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study by collecting 61 variables from full-time plastic surgery faculty affiliated with United States residency training programs during the 2020-2021 academic year. Surgeons were stratified into nine cohorts for comparison by professorship (assistant, associate, professor) and Doximity-ranked institution program tiers (Tier 1 = T1, Tier 2 = T2, Tier 3 = T3). Univariate followed by multivariate regressions with reciprocal transformation were performed to determine predictors more likely associated with promotion or lateral movement. Results A total of 98 programs listed 851 surgeons. T1/T2/T3 surgeon promotion predictors included more years in practice (p = 0.002; p < 0.001; p < 0.001) and greater number of last-author publications (p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.007). T1/T3 surgeon promotion predictors included higher h-indexes (p = 0.001; p = 0.002). T1 surgeon promotion predictors included being on journal editorial board (p = 0.040). T2 surgeon promotion predictors from assistant to associate included non-white race (p = 0.010). T3 surgeon promotion predictors included residency director (p = 0.009) and greater number of citations (p = 0.026). Promotion predictors from assistant, associate, and professors for T3/T2/T1 programs included greater number of last-author publications (p = 0.007; p = 0.002; p < 0.001). Movement from assistant and associate between T3/T2/T1 programs included plastic surgery department (p = 0.002; p < 0.001). Movement from assistant between programs included attending Top 10 US News medical schools (p = 0.012), attending more favorable Doximity-ranked research programs (p < 0.001), greater number of first-author publications (p = 0.017), and greater number of citations (p = 0.023). Movement from associate between programs included attending more favorable Doximity-ranked reputation programs (p = 0.017) and higher h-indexes (p = 0.017). Movement from professor between programs included receiving any American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) award (p = 0.039) and greater number of AAPS awards (p = 0.012). Conclusions Promotion predictors provided evidence to synthesize the Doximity-tiered Promotion Ladder of Academic Plastic Surgery.

Industry Payments and Their Association With Academic Influence in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between industry payments and academic influence, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index) and number of publications, among adult reconstruction surgeons is not well characterized. The aims of the present study are to determine the relationship between an adult reconstruction surgeons' academic influence and their relevant industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS: Adult reconstruction surgeons were identified through the websites for the orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States during the 2019-2020 academic year. Academic influence was approximated by each physician's h-index and total number of publications. Industry payment data were obtained through the Open Payments Database, and NIH funding was determined through the NIH website. Mann-Whitney U testing and Spearman correlations were performed to examine relevant associations. RESULTS: Surgeons who received industry research payments had a higher mean h-index (16.1 vs 10.2, P < .001) and mean number of publications (79.1 vs 35.9, P < .001) than physicians who received no industry research payments. Surgeons receiving NIH funding had a higher mean h-index (48.1 vs 10.4, P < .001) and mean number of publications (294.5 vs 36.8, P < .001) than surgeons who did not receive NIH funding. There was no association between the average h-index (P = .668) and number of publications (P = .387) among adult reconstruction surgeons receiving industry nonresearch funding. CONCLUSION: h-index and total publications do not seem to be associated with industry nonresearch payments in the field of total joint arthroplasty. Altogether, these data suggest that industry bias may not play a strong role in total joint arthroplasty.

"A Sign of Things to Come: Training Research Output Long-Term Scholarship in Academic Plastic Surgery."

BACKGROUNDS: Academic plastic surgery has utilized different methods to promote early involvement of trainees in research. Further analysis is needed to characterize the effects of this early emphasis and their impact on long-term academic contributions to the field. METHODS: In October 2020, a cross-sectional study of 949 faculty from US academic plastic surgery programs was conducted using publicly available websites. Training research output for each surgeon was compared to post-training research output and other metrics measuring sustained career scholarship. RESULTS: Increased training publications (P< 0.0001) and citations (P< 0.0001) were associated with fewer years in practice. 727 surgeons (80.0%) had ≥ 1 research article, and this group proceeded to attain significantly higher mean post-training publications per year (3.04 ± 0.14 vs. 1.45 ± 0.13, P< 0.0001) and citations per year (72.12 ± 5.04 vs. 28.39 ± 3.49, P< 0.0001) compared to the 182 (20.0%) surgeons with no training publications. For individuals, total training publications were positively correlated with post-training publications per year (P< 0.0001), a relationship also observed for citations (P< 0.0001). When controlling for years in practice, increased training publications and/or citations were significantly associated with attaining academic professor track (versus clinical professor track) position, endowed professor status, journal board position, and NIH funding (P< 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend of increasing research productivity during plastic surgery training, and increased training output is predictive of attaining multiple measures of career academic achievement. Academic plastic surgery should continue to underscore research participation as a valuable part of the training process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266 .