Search

Chest masculinization surgeries are one of the most common gender-affirming procedures performed. There is a need for better understanding of the risk of breast cancer and postsurgical screening in female to male (FtM) individuals. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of high-risk pathologic findings in FtM transgender patients undergoing gender-affirming chest reconstructive surgery.Medical records were reviewed from all FtM patients undergoing gender-affirming chest reconstructive surgery from January 2010 to February 2021 by 3 plastic surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Relative risk of malignant progression was used to stratify pathologic data. Subsequent management of atypical, in situ, and invasive pathology were recorded.A total of 318 patients were included in this study; the average age at surgery was 24.6 ± 8.1 years. Eighty-six patients (27%) had a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Overall, 21 patients (6.6%) had some increased risk of breast cancer: 17 (5.3%) had proliferative lesions, mean age 38.2 ± 12.4 years; 2 had atypical ductal hyperplasia, ages 33.4 and 38.3 years; and 2 had invasive ductal carcinoma, ages 35.4 and 40.6 years.In this study, we found that 6.6% of FtM transgender patients undergoing top surgery had an elevated risk of breast cancer, with 1.2% of patients having a greater than 2 times risk of breast cancer. These results highlight the importance of appropriate preoperative screening as well as pathological analysis of surgical specimens to help guide clinical care. The authors advocate for a thorough breast cancer risk assessment before surgery for all patients, as well as using pathologic findings to guide postoperative cancer screening and follow-up.

BACKGROUND The competitive nature of an academic plastic surgery career has contributed to an increase in sub-specialization. The aim of this study is to assess the benefits of subspecialty fellowship training to pursue a career in academic plastic surgery. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted of all current academic plastic surgeons (APSs) participating in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-certified residency programs. Online faculty website listings were used to collect their demographics, training and practice characteristics, academic rank and leadership positions, and research productivity. RESULTS A total of 927 APSs met the inclusion criteria, of which 70.2% had undergone fellowship training, with an overall significant increase in fellowship-trained surgeons within the last 10 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; P = 0.0005). Hand training was the most common fellowship (35.6%), followed by craniofacial (32.0%) and microsurgery (28.1%). Fellowship training was more prevalent among younger (48.7 vs 53.5 years, P < 0.0001), White (67.8%), and non-White (77.4%, P = 0.0058) APSs who had received either integrated (67.1%) or independent (81.8%, P < 0.0001) plastic surgery training and are currently working in a department (OR, 1.44; P = 0.028). Fellowship training was shown to influence academic rank (associate professor: OR, 1.68 [P = 0.0073]; full professor: OR, 0.58 [P = 0.0008]), leadership position (fellowship director OR, 10.09; P < 0.0001) and research productivity (publications: 26 vs 16.5; P = 0.0009). In addition, fellowship attainment did not correlate with the size of the employing academic program, population of the city of practice, or being a residency director or chair. CONCLUSION The majority of APSs have undergone fellowship training, and there is very strong evidence supporting its impact in current entry and advancement in academic plastic surgery.

INTRODUCTION The training pathway for plastic surgery has evolved in recent years with the adoption and rise in popularity of the integrated model. Studies have demonstrated that there may be differences between integrated graduates and independent graduates, specifically in career choices and type of practice. This study seeks to understand if there are differences in representation at academic and leadership positions between graduates of the 2 pathways. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted in June of 2018 to assess integrated and independent pathway graduate's representation in academic plastic surgery in the United States. Factors examined were career qualifications, academic productivity, faculty positions, and influence of pathway on career advancement. RESULTS A total of 924 academic plastic surgeons were analyzed, 203 (22.0%) of whom were integrated graduates and 721 (78.0%) of whom were independent graduates. Independent graduates had greater National Institutes of Health funding (integrated, $40,802; independent, $257,428; P = 0.0043), higher h-index (integrated, 7.0; independent, 10.0; P < 0.001), and higher publication number (integrated, 17; independent, 25; P = 0.0011). Integrated graduates were more likely to be assistant professors (integrated, 70%; independent, 40.7%; P < 0.001) and required a shorter postresidency time to reach all positions examined compared with independent graduates. CONCLUSIONS Residency training pathway influences academic plastic surgeons in research output, qualifications, and academic positions. This is likely due to the relatively new nature of the integrated program compared with the independent, as well as the shorter length of training for integrated graduates. However, trends are moving toward integrated graduates showing increased interest and productivity in academic medicine.

Background After completion of training, a physician's training institution has a lasting and meaningful impact on career trajectory. Training program influence on first job placement and academic promotions remain uncertain in academic plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of training and internal bias in academic plastic surgery employment and promotion. Methods Academic plastic surgery faculty were identified through an internet search of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency training programs. Faculty demographics, training background, employment, and leadership status were gathered. The analysis examined the impact of internal recruitment bias on first job employment, the impact of training history on institutional leadership promotion (chair/chief, residency director, or fellowship director), and the impact of alumni effect on academic employment. Results A significant proportion of recent graduates (38.6%) are practicing at the same institution as where they received residency or fellowship training. Of the 229 institutional leaders, 31.5% of chairs/chiefs, 39.6% of residency directors, and 37.5% of fellowship directors were internal hires. Overall, 34% of plastic surgery faculty in the United States share a common training program with at least 1 colleague. The top 5 programs that have the most faculty who trained at their hiring institution are Harvard (30 faculty), University of Southern California (15 faculty), University of California Los Angeles (12 faculty), University of Michigan (12 faculty), and Albert Einstein (12 faculty). Overall, 54% of plastic surgery departments employ 2 or more faculty who share a common external training program. The top 5 programs that have the most faculty who share an external training program are (1) Methodist Houston, 8 faculty who trained at Baylor; (2) Hofstra, 7 faculty who trained at New York University; (3) Stanford, 6 faculty who trained at University of California, Los Angeles; (4) Wisconsin, 5 faculty who trained at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; and (5) University of Southern California, 4 faculty who trained at New York University. Conclusions The study highlights that an internal bias exists in the recruitment for first jobs and leadership promotions. However, a clear bias of internal hiring exists at several institutions. In addition, an alumni effect was identified, where some programs have a bias of hiring faculty who trained at the same external institution.

PURPOSE Components separation of the abdominal musculature remains a mainstay for closure of complicated midline and paramedian abdominal wall defects. The authors critically analyzed their experience with this technique to identify prognosticators affecting long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing components separation by a single senior surgeon (J.M.R.) between 2000 and 2010. Numerous perioperative patient characteristics were collected and analyzed to determine their effects on long-term clinical outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict hernia recurrence and other adverse clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 311 patients were identified (male, 51.1%). Mean age was 53.1 ± 14.0 years, preoperative body mass index was 33.1 ± 8.2 kg/m, and defect width was 11.4 ± 7.5 cm. Patients who had prior hernia repair were 97.4%, with 38.3% having prior mesh placement. Average follow-up was 2.9 ± 2.4 years. Overall hernia recurrence rate was 18.3%. Postoperative complications included seroma (9.3%), superficial wound infection (9.0%), skin dehiscence (4.82%), hematoma (3.2%), deep vein thrombos or pulmonary emolbus (3.2%), and skin flap ischemia (1.0%). Respiratory comorbidity (odds ratio, [OR], 2.02; P < 0.029), prior failed mesh repair (OR, 1.86; P < 0.045), and occurrence of any postoperative complication (OR, 2.02; P < 0.034) significantly increased the risk of eventual hernia recurrence. Preoperative body mass index was not associated with hernia recurrence (P < 0.351) or increased incidence of any aforementioned postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a comprehensive review of one of the largest single-surgeon experiences using components separation to date. Patients with respiratory comorbidities, prior failed mesh repair, and the occurrence of any postoperative complication are at significantly increased risk for hernia recurrence.

Background The Inaugural American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons Plastic Surgery Boot Camp program was developed in response to ongoing changes in graduate medical education. The Boot Camp is a hands-on, practicum-based, 3-day course to introduce core concepts in plastic surgery for new plastic surgery residents (in both integrated and independent tracks). Methods The course was held in Pittsburgh in July to August 2015. There were 43 attendees (35 integrated/8 independent) representing 22 residency programs across 15 states. Faculty was composed of 8 local personnel and 5 visiting. Lecture topics and practical sessions covered the full spectrum of plastic surgery. All trainees completed an online survey evaluation both during the course and at 6 months. Results Participant responses were overwhelmingly positive. A total of 72% of respondents rated the Boot Camp ≥ 8 on a 1 to 10 scale (10 is excellent) for the overall course rating; 79% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the simulation scenarios were realistic; and 75% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they found simulation-based training to be a valuable way to teach this material. Respondents reported an increase in comfort and confidence across topics after attending the Boot Camp at both 0- and 6-month time points. Instructors received positive evaluations across all topics. Conclusions This successful inaugural course serves as a benchmark for development of a logistical blueprint, business plan, and curriculum for a proposed expansion to regional centers, to potentially encompass all incoming residents in plastic surgery.