Plastic Surgery Training Worldwide: Part 1. The United States and Europe

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Plastic Surgery Training Worldwide: Part 1. The United States and Europe

Citable link to this page


Title: Plastic Surgery Training Worldwide: Part 1. The United States and Europe
Author: Kamali, Parisa; van Paridon, Maaike W.; Ibrahim, Ahmed M. S.; Paul, Marek A.; Winters, Henri A.; Martinot-Duquennoy, Veronique; Noah, Ernst Magnus; Pallua, Norbert; Lin, Samuel J.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Kamali, Parisa, Maaike W. van Paridon, Ahmed M. S. Ibrahim, Marek A. Paul, Henri A. Winters, Veronique Martinot-Duquennoy, Ernst Magnus Noah, Norbert Pallua, and Samuel J. Lin. 2016. “Plastic Surgery Training Worldwide: Part 1. The United States and Europe.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open 4 (3): e641. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: 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.
Published Version: doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627
Other Sources:
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at
Citable link to this page:
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)


Search DASH

Advanced Search