Preserving the Legitimacy of Board Certification.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this discussion were to inform the medical community about the American Board of Cosmetic Surgery's ongoing attempts in Louisiana to achieve equivalency to American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) member boards so that its diplomates may use the term "board certified" in advertising and to ensure public safety by upholding the standards for medical board certification. BACKGROUND: In 2011, Louisiana passed a truth in medical advertising law, which was intended to protect the public by prohibiting the use of the term "board certified" by improperly credentialed physicians. An American Board of Cosmetic Surgery diplomate petitioned the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners to approve a rule that would establish a pathway to equivalency for non-ABMS member boards, whose diplomates have not completed training approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in the specialty they are certifying. Physicians and physician organizations representing multiple specialties (facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, otolaryngology [head and neck surgery], orthopedic spine surgery, pediatric neurosurgery, dermatology, and plastic surgery) urged the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners to clarify its advertising policy, limiting the use of the term "board certified" to physicians who have completed ACGME-approved training in the specialty or subspecialty named in the certificate. DISCUSSION: The public equates the term "board certified" with the highest level of expertise in a medical specialty. When a certifying board does not require completion of ACGME or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)-accredited training in the specialty it certifies, the result is an unacceptable degree of variability in the education and training standards applied to its diplomates. Independent, third-party oversight of certifying boards and training programs is necessary to ensure quality standards are upheld. Any system that assesses a non-ABMS member or non-AOA-certified board for equivalency approval must ensure that the training and qualifications required by the non-ABMS or AOA board are equivalent in scope, content, and duration to those required by the ABMS and AOA. This issue must not be misconstrued as a "turf battle" between physicians of 2 competing specialties. Preserving the legitimacy of board certification is incumbent upon all medical specialties and subspecialties. This argument is a truthful, principled defense of the legitimacy of board certification.

Secondary Abdominoplasty: Management of the Umbilicus after Prior Stalk Transection.

Patients with prior umbilical stalk detachment, secondary to limited abdominoplasty or prior umbilical hernia repair, may in the future be candidates for full abdominoplasty. In these patients, a circumferential incision around the umbilicus detaches the remaining cutaneous blood supply, prompting concern for umbilical viability. Minimal literature exists to guide clinical decision-making for these patients. Inquiries were made to Louisiana Society of Plastic Surgery members and the Plastic Surgery Education Network online forum of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Metrics obtained included patient age, sex, nature of primary surgery, time between umbilical stalk detachment and secondary full abdominoplasty, complications, and whether rectus plication was performed at the time of secondary surgery. Eleven physicians provided complete documentation for 18 cases. All patients healed without evidence of umbilical ischemia or necrosis. Average patient age was 40.6 years. Average interval between procedures was 3.6 years. Sixty-seven percent of patients had the umbilicus delayed before the secondary procedure, with the median delay time being 18 days. Rectus fascia was plicated during secondary surgery in 72 percent of patients. This is the first reported series of patients undergoing full abdominoplasty after prior umbilical stalk detachment. It is also the first time the Plastic Surgery Education Network online forum has been used to collect research data, highlighting its potential as a valuable research tool. The data set was obtained from a wide range of practices, which allows for consideration of various technical solutions when this or other diverse clinical scenarios are encountered. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, V.