Person:

Kamali-Sadeghian, Parisa

Background: Major differences exist in residency training, and the structure and quality of residency programs differ between different countries and teaching centers. It is of vital importance that a better understanding of the similarities and differences in plastic surgery training be ascertained as a means of initiating constructive discussion and commentary among training programs worldwide. In this study, the authors provide an overview of plastic surgery training in the United States and Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to select surgeons in 10 European countries that were deemed to be regular contributors to the plastic surgery literature. The questions focused on pathway to plastic surgery residency, length of training, required pretraining experience, training scheme, research opportunities, and examinations during and after plastic surgery residency. Results: Plastic surgery residency training programs in the United States differ from the various (selected) countries in Europe and are described in detail. Conclusions: Plastic surgery education is vastly different between the United States and Europe, and even within Europe, training programs remain heterogeneous. Standardization of curricula across the different countries would improve the interaction of different centers and facilitate the exchange of vital information for quality control and future improvements. The unique characteristics of the various training programs potentially provide a basis from which to learn and to gain from one another.

Background: Rhinoplasty is 1 of the most common aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgical procedures performed within the United States. Yet, data on functional reconstructive open and closed rhinoplasty procedures with or without spreader graft placement are not definitive as only a few studies have examined both validated measurable objective and subjective outcomes of spreader grafting during rhinoplasty. The aim of this study was to utilize previously validated measures to assess objective, functional outcomes in patients who underwent open and closed rhinoplasty with spreader grafting. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive rhinoplasty patients. Patients with internal nasal valve insufficiency who underwent an open and closed approach rhinoplasty between 2007 and 2016 were studied. The Cottle test and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation survey was used to assess nasal obstruction. Patient-reported symptoms were recorded. Acoustic rhinometry was performed pre- and postoperatively. Average minimal cross-sectional area of the nose was measured. Results: One hundred seventy-eight patients were reviewed over a period of 8 years. Thirty-eight patients were included in this study. Of those, 30 patients underwent closed rhinoplasty and 8 open rhinoplasty. Mean age was 36.9 ± 18.4 years. The average cross-sectional area in closed and open rhinoplasty patients increased significantly (P = 0.019). There was a functional improvement in all presented cases using the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale evaluation. Conclusions: Closed rhinoplasty with spreader grafting may play a significant role in the treatment of nasal valve collapse. A closed approach rhinoplasty including spreader grafting is a viable option in select cases with objective and validated functional improvement.

Background: The aim was to assess reliability of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 30-day perioperative outcomes and complications for immediate, free-tissue transfer breast reconstruction by direct comparisons with our 30-day and overall institutional data, and assessing those that occur after 30 days. Methods: Data were retrieved for consecutive immediate, free-tissue transfer breast reconstruction patients from a single-institution database (2010–2015) and the ACS-NSQIP (2011–2014). Multiple logistic regressions were performed to compare adjusted outcomes between the 2 datasets. Results: For institutional versus ACS-NSQIP outcomes, there were no significant differences in surgical-site infection (SSI; 30-day, 3.6% versus 4.1%, P = 0.818; overall, 5.3% versus 4.1%, P = 0.198), wound disruption (WD; 30-day, 1.3% versus 1.5%, P = 0.526; overall, 2.3% versus 1.5%, P = 0.560), or unplanned readmission (URA; 30-day, 2.3% versus 3.3%, P = 0.714; overall, 4.6% versus 3.3%, P = 0.061). However, the ACS-NSQIP reported a significantly higher unplanned reoperation (URO) rate (30-day, 3.6% versus 9.5%, P < 0.001; overall, 5.3% versus 9.5%, P = 0.025). Institutional complications consisted of 5.3% SSI, 2.3% WD, 5.3% URO, and 4.6% URA, of which 25.0% SSI, 28.6% WD, 12.5% URO, and 7.1% URA occurred at 30–60 days, and 6.3% SSI, 14.3% WD, 18.8% URO, and 42.9% URA occurred after 60 days. Conclusion: For immediate, free-tissue breast reconstruction, the ACS-NSQIP may be reliable for monitoring and comparing SSI, WD, URO, and URA rates. However, clinicians may find it useful to understand limitations of the ACS-NSQIP for complications and risk factors, as it may underreport complications occurring beyond 30 days.

Background: By eliminating economic hurdles, the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 represented a paradigm shift in the availability of breast reconstruction. Yet, studies report disparities among Medicare-insured women. These studies do not account for the inherent differences in age and comorbidities between a younger privately insured and an older Medicare population. We examined immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) utilization between a matched pre- and post-Medicare population. Methods: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (1992–2013), breast cancer patients undergoing IBR were identified. To minimize confounding medical variables, 64-year-old privately insured women were compared with 66-year-old Medicare-insured women. Demographic data, IBR rates, and complication rates were compared. Trend over time was plotted for both cohorts. Result: A total of 21,402 64-year-old women and 25,568 66-year-old women were included. Both groups were well matched in terms of demographic type of reconstruction and complication rates. 72.3% of 64-year-old and 71.2 of % 66-year-old women opted for mastectomy. Of these, 25.5% (n = 3,941) of 64-year-old privately insured and 17.7% (n = 3,213) of 66-year-old Medicare-insured women underwent IBR (P < 0.01). During the study period, IBR rates increased significantly in both cohorts in a similar cohort. Conclusion: This study demonstrates significant increasing IBR rates in both cohorts. Moreover, after an initial slower upward trend, after a decade, IBR in 66-year-old Medicare-insured women approached similar rates of breast reconstruction among those with private insurance. Trends in unilateral versus bilateral mastectomy are also seen.