Person:

Paul, Marek

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.