Plastic surgery and specialty creep: an analysis of publication trends

Background Many surgical specialties have had pioneering influences from plastic surgeons. However, many of these areas of practice have evolved to include surgeons from diverse training backgrounds. This raises the question as to whether the prominence of other specialties in clinical practice translates to greater research productivity in these areas. The objective of this paper is to investigate the publication volumes of plastic surgeons in selected areas of practice compared to surgeons from other disciplines.Methods PubMed was used to examine publication trends in areas associated with plastic surgery. Searches for the following topics were performed: head and neck reconstruction, hand surgery, breast reconstruction, ventral hernia repair, abdominal component separation, brachial plexus injury, craniofacial surgery, and aesthetic surgery. Affiliation tags were used to examine contributions from nine specialties. Web of Science was used to identify the top cited articles for the last 10 years in each area.Results Articles by non-plastic surgeons comprise the majority of the literature for all areas of practice studied except for breast reconstruction and aesthetic surgery. Despite this, plastic surgeons contributed the greatest number of top cited articles over the last 10 years for five of the areas of practice.Conclusions While plastic surgeons do not contribute the greatest proportion of articles published each year in several of the selected areas of practice, they do publish a larger number of articles that are the most cited. Plastic surgeons remain the dominant academic force in terms of volume and citations for both breast and aesthetic surgery.

Download Full-text

The Decline of Head and Neck Reconstruction in Plastic Surgery

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery ◽

10.1097/prs.0000000000006489 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 145 (2) ◽

pp. 467e-468e

Author(s):

Z.-Hye Lee ◽

David A. Daar ◽

Adam S. Jacobson ◽

Jamie P. Levine

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽

Neck Reconstruction

Download Full-text

Breaking Down Silos: Collaboration in Head and Neck Reconstruction Research

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1716322 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Amanda K. Silva ◽

Eduardo D. Rodriguez ◽

Adam S. Jacobson ◽

Jamie P. Levine

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽

Neck Reconstruction ◽

Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

Working Together ◽

American Society ◽

Oral Presentations

Abstract Background Collaboration has been shown to be beneficial when we have complex problems and highly specialized groups, such as in head and neck reconstruction. Otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and oral maxillofacial surgeons perform head and neck reconstruction research. While the specialties represent unique backgrounds, the degree of interdisciplinary collaboration and subtopic focus is unknown. We sought to describe the frequency of interinstitutional interdisciplinary collaboration and examine the association of specialty with research subtopics. Methods Oral presentations from 2014 to 2018 focused on head and neck reconstruction or associated principles at the main reconstructive academic meetings in otolaryngology (American Head and Neck Society), plastic surgery (American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery), and oral maxillofacial surgery (American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) were reviewed. Author specialty and institution data were recorded. All abstracts were assigned a research subtopic, chosen based on identified themes. Subtopic frequencies among the specialties were compared. Results Thirteen of 88 (15%) US institutions participate in interdisciplinary collaboration in head and neck reconstruction research. Of the remaining institutions, 23 (31%) have researchers performing parallel work and not collaborating. Certain research subtopics were more often presented by each specialty, representing differing interests. Conclusion Collaboration among head and neck reconstruction research at the US institutions is low compared with the potential. Specialties focus on different research subtopics, and therefore can benefit from working together.

Download Full-text

S171 – Head and Neck Microvascular Reconstruction: Changing Trends

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1016/j.otohns.2008.05.345 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽

pp. P133-P133

Author(s):

Rene M Pena ◽

Paul Dae-Gwon Kim ◽

Mark R Rowe

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Surgical Techniques ◽

Free Flaps ◽

Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽

Microvascular Reconstruction ◽

Residency Programs ◽

Neck Reconstruction ◽

Case Number ◽

Microvascular Free Flaps

Objectives The practice of head and neck reconstruction has been evolving over the past 15 years with the introduction of new surgical techniques, and increasing options for tissue harvest. We sought to investigate corresponding trends in the disciplines performing head and neck microvascular reconstruction. Methods 2 specialties for the proportion of head and neck microvascular reconstruction were compared: those performed by otolaryngologists and those done by plastics surgery. A 3-part study was performed to evaluate these trends: 1) Total case number of microvascular cases of otolaryngology residents and plastic surgery residents over the last 4 years was evaluated through the ACGME national data; 2) A poll of the percentage of otolaryngology residency programs that have their own microvascular reconstructive surgeon, and if that surgeon was hired within the last 5 years; and 3) The number of scientific articles published relating to microvascular head and neck reconstruction were systematically queried for 2 timeframes, (1995–2000) and (2002–2007). Results The national number of cases has steadily increased in the last 5 years. It has slowly increased compared to plastic surgery, but when all flaps are evaluated, it is not significant. We also found that the number of peer-reviewed articles relating to microvascular free flaps authored by otolaryngologists has increased. The data from the polls are still pending. Conclusions There is an increasing trend emerging in the practice of head and neck microvascular reconstruction, with an increase number of articles being authored and increased number of surgeries being performed by otolaryngolo-gists, compared to plastic surgeons.

Download Full-text

PLASTIC SURGERY TECHNIQUE IN HEAD AND NECK RECONSTRUCTION-DONOR SITE CLOSURE AND SECONDARY REVISION

Toukeibu Gan ◽

10.5981/jjhnc.32.241 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 32 (3) ◽

pp. 241-246 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mitsuru SEKIDO ◽

Hiroshi FURUKAWA ◽

Toshihiko HAYASHI ◽

Yuhei YAMAMOTO ◽

Toshiyuki MINAMIMOTO

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Donor Site ◽

Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽

Neck Reconstruction ◽

Surgery Technique

Download Full-text

Awareness among medical fraternity regarding the role of plastic surgeon

Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1699525 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 44 (03) ◽

pp. 494-497 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Vijay Kumar ◽

Arun Kumar Singh ◽

Ameer Faisal ◽

R. Nandini

Keyword(s):

Plastic Surgery ◽

Hand Surgery ◽

Aesthetic Surgery ◽

Plastic Surgeon ◽

Craniofacial Surgery ◽

Referral Source ◽

Burn Surgery ◽

Reconstructive Plastic Surgery ◽

Reconstructive Plastic

ABSTRACTThe field of plastic surgery, while being famous for aesthetic surgery, also includes craniofacial surgery, hand surgery, burn surgery, microsurgery, reconstructive plastic surgery and paediatric plastic surgery. The magnanimous progress in these areas, though a hot topic in conferences, remains cryptic to the layman and also to generalists who are and will remain to be the most important referral source of these patients.[1] Hence, it becomes the duty of plastic surgeons themselves to spread awareness regarding their chosen field of endeavour.

Download Full-text

Head and Neck Reconstruction: Does Surgical Specialty Affect Complication Rates?

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1688711 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 35 (07) ◽

pp. 516-521 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

James J. Drinane ◽

John Drinane ◽

Lakshmi Nair ◽

Ashit Patel

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Resource Utilization ◽

Average Length ◽

Bleeding Complications ◽

Unplanned Readmission ◽

Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Potential Cost ◽

Neck Reconstruction

Background Reconstruction of head and neck defects resulting from resection of head and neck masses is performed by both plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database allows one to directly compare the outcomes for a given procedure based upon specialty. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes and resource utilization of microvascular head and neck reconstruction between plastic surgery and otolaryngology. Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained and NSQIP was queried from 2005 to 2015 with inclusion of Current Procedural Terminology codes for free tissue transfer performed for head and neck reconstruction. Outcomes were compared between cases having otolaryngology and plastic surgery as performing the free flap reconstruction. Results During 2005 to 2015, a total of 2,322 flaps were performed, 893 by plastic surgery and 1,429 by otolaryngology. Average length of stay (LOS) was 13.7 and 11.4 days for plastic surgery and otolaryngology, respectively. It was found that plastic surgery performed more osteocutaneous flaps than otolaryngology. Higher rates of superficial surgical site infection, deep surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, sepsis, unplanned return to the operating room, and unplanned readmission were observed for patients treated by otolaryngology (p < 0.05). Conclusion This study shows plastic surgery patients have superior outcomes with regards to free tissue transfers of the head and neck when compared with otolaryngology patients. Although plastic surgery patients experienced a longer LOS, the significantly lower complication rate supports an overall more optimal resource utilization. Future studies may elucidate potential cost savings in patients treated by plastic surgery.

Download Full-text