RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recommendations for breast surveillance following breast plastic surgery are frequently changing. Establishing guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols may help identify treatable conditions and prevent untoward sequelae. We sought to evaluate the current state of evidence-based long-term monitoring protocols for patients following breast augmentation, reduction, and breast reconstruction. METHODS: Official guidelines from various American societies and international societies were analyzed for alignment in evidence-based recommendations regarding breast surveillance. RESULTS: The most recent US FDA update recommends magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound starting 5-6 years after surgery and every 2-3 years thereafter. Discrepancies exist among professional societies: the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) aligns with the FDA, while the American Society of Breast Surgeons and American College of Radiology (ACR) find no role for imaging for asymptomatic cases. Ultrasound is first-line for any implant concerns, with MRI if necessary. European societies oppose routine breast implant imaging. Breast reduction patients lack unique screening protocols; monitoring aligns with age and cancer risk factors. Following mastectomy and breast reconstruction, most organizations advocate for annual clinical examinations, with more frequent examinations initially. Evidence suggests that physical examination is sufficient to detect local cancer recurrence, with imaging only indicated if there is concern for recurrence. No surveillance imaging is recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or ASPS; however, ACR recommends mammography for autologous reconstruction only. CONCLUSION: Multispecialty and regulatory body alignment may promote provider and patient adherence. Ongoing studies of long-term outcomes are needed to strengthen the level of evidence for monitoring guidelines.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Aesthetic surgery fellowship applications were consolidated under the San Francisco Match in 2018. The impact of these changes on aesthetic program and applicant numbers had not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVES: In this study we sought to evaluate changes in programs, positions, applications, match rates, and fill rates since aesthetic surgery joined the San Francisco Match. We also aimed to compare these trends to craniofacial surgery, microsurgery, and hand surgery fellowships over this same time period. METHODS: San Francisco and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match data for aesthetic, craniofacial, microsurgery, and hand fellowships were obtained from 2018 to 2022, and the number of applications, positions, programs, and successful matches were evaluated. RESULTS: The number of aesthetic fellowship positions increased from 17 to 41 (141%) over the period studied. This resulted in increased match rates and more unfilled positions. Over the same period, fellowship positions for craniofacial, hand, and microsurgery increased by 3.4%, 6%, and 2.5% respectively. There was no increase in applications to any postgraduate subspecialty, nor was there any change in the number of residents pursuing fellowship. Similarly, there was no change in the percentage of fellowship-bound residents applying to any given discipline. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in aesthetic fellowship programs and positions did not generate an increase in applications. Applications to other plastic surgery subspecialties also failed to increase. Unlike aesthetic fellowships, their program numbers have remained stable. Given the limited fellowship applicant pool, our focus should be on enhancing the quality of existing aesthetic programs rather than continuing to increase the number of aesthetic positions.