scholarly journals Graduate perception of cosmetic surgery training in plastic surgery residency and fellowship programs

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-77
Author(s):  
Ledibabari Mildred Ngaage ◽  
Cecelia J Kim ◽  
Chelsea Harris ◽  
Colton HL McNichols ◽  
Chinezimuzo Ihenatu ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 074880682110518
Author(s):  
Kamran Dastoury ◽  
Jacob Haiavy ◽  
Jane Petro ◽  
Martha Ayewah

Introduction: This study was performed to provide a comprehensive review of the breadth and depth of fellowship training provided by the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (AACS), with direct comparison with other current aesthetic surgery training programs available in the United States. We hypothesized that this subspecialty training provides essential experience and confidence to perform aesthetic procedures, which are likely not adequately imparted during traditional residency training. We also address the notion that Cosmetic Surgery is not under the sole ownership of one specialty, but rather a subspecialty that flourishes by collaboration between multidisciplinary surgical backgrounds. Materials and Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of survey data from 2 distinct groups—current fellows in a 1-year AACS program and surgeons who completed an AACS fellowship between July 2008 and June 2017, who have been in active cosmetic surgery practice ranging from 6 months to over 6 years. A survey was administered via email and distributed by the AACS central office. The responses were compared with data published in the Annals of Plastic Surgery concerning Recent Trends in Resident Career Choices after Plastic Surgery Training. Results: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for aesthetic surgical cases in a 6-year Plastic Surgery program are 150 cases, but 50% of graduating seniors feel inadequately prepared to transition straight into aesthetic surgery practice, whereas among AACS graduating fellows, 100% feel very prepared to go on the aesthetic surgery practice, having completed an average of 687 cases within the yearlong training program. We note that the survey response rate was 81% among current fellows versus 35% among practicing surgeons. Discussion: We believe that focused subspecialty training in cosmetic surgery after completion of a primary surgical residency in a form of a structured fellowship through AACS, American Society of Plastic Surgery, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Commission on Dental Accreditation, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Oculoplastic) is the ideal preparation for the future. As we learn from each other through fellowship training, academic conferences, and research, this will further advance the subspecialty and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes. There is no evidence that these training programs provide less adequate preparation, although they are not accredited by the ACGME. To the contrary, the additional experience and knowledge gained during these fellowship training programs result in better outcomes and more competent practitioners. Conclusions: The development of subspecialty training and board certification for surgeons committed to cosmetic surgery yields the highest level of qualified providers. The diverse backgrounds of these providers continue to allow us to expand and innovate in this field. This study is aimed at moving this conversation forward in a positive direction.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Momeni ◽  
Rebecca Y. Kim ◽  
Derrick C. Wan ◽  
Ali Izadpanah ◽  
Gordon K. Lee

Background. Three educational models for plastic surgery training exist in the United States, the integrated, combined, and independent model. The present study is a comparative analysis of aesthetic surgery training, to assess whether one model is particularly suitable to provide for high-quality training in aesthetic surgery. Methods. An 18-item online survey was developed to assess residents’ perceptions regarding the quality of training in aesthetic surgery in the US. The survey had three distinct sections: demographic information, current state of aesthetic surgery training, and residents’ perception regarding the quality of aesthetic surgery training. Results. A total of 86 senior plastic surgery residents completed the survey. Twenty-three, 24, and 39 residents were in integrated, combined, and independent residency programs, respectively. No statistically significant differences were seen with respect to number of aesthetic surgery procedures performed, additional training received in minimal-invasive cosmetic procedures, median level of confidence with index cosmetic surgery procedures, or perceived quality of aesthetic surgery training. Facial aesthetic procedures were felt to be the most challenging procedures. Exposure to minimally invasive aesthetic procedures was limited. Conclusion. While the educational experience in aesthetic surgery appears to be similar, weaknesses still exist with respect to training in minimally invasive/nonsurgical aesthetic procedures.


2008 ◽  
Vol 122 (5) ◽  
pp. 1570-1578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin M. Morrison ◽  
S Cristina Rotemberg ◽  
Andrea Moreira-Gonzalez ◽  
James E. Zins

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Q. J. Chivers ◽  
J. Ahmad ◽  
F. Lista ◽  
R. J. Warren ◽  
A. Y. Arkoubi ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. 1532-1538 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.M. Pantelides ◽  
L. Highton ◽  
A. Lamb ◽  
P. Foden ◽  
R.I.S. Winterton

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. e1491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colton H. L. McNichols ◽  
Silviu Diaconu ◽  
Sara Alfadil ◽  
Jhade Woodall ◽  
Michael Grant ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document