<< Back to the abstract archive
Resident and Program Director Perceptions of Aesthetic Training in Plastic Surgery Residency: An Update.
Ahmed M Hashem (MD)
Joshua T Waltzman (MD)
Kayshap Tadisina (MD)
Cagri Cakmakoglu (MD)
Jeffrey M Kenkel (MD)**
James E Zins (MD)
AFFILIATION
** Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
Department of Plastic Surgery-Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland Clinic
2016-02-11
Presenter: Ahmed M Hashem
Affidavit:
I certify that the material proposed for presentation in this abstract has not been published in any scientific journal or previously presented at a major meeting.
Director Name: James E Zins
Author Category: Fellow Plastic Surgery
Presentation Category: Clinical
Abstract Category: Aesthetics
BACKGROUND
This is our third-survey exploring resident and program-director impressions of the quality of cosmetic-surgery-training over a 9-year period (2006-2015). The original-survey (2006) documented less-facility in facial, minimally-invasive, and complex-body-contouring techniques. The second-survey (2009) demonstrated improvements in body-contouring and minimally-invasive procedures.
METHODS
The survey was emailed by SurveyMonkey (Palo Alto, California) to 477 ASPS Resident/Fellow-members (22 questions), and 95 program-directors (18 questions) (independent and integrated programs). Additional questions for residents surveyed career aspirations and further training goals. Univariate statistical analysis was used for all aspects of the survey.
RESULTS
Thirty-three program-directors (34.7%), and 233 (48.8%) residents responded. The survey revealed a disparity in program-director vs resident satisfaction with aesthetic-surgery-training (residents less satisfied). Residents reported increased exposure to lasers and injectables. They continued to feel most confident with body contouring and breast techniques. Facial-aesthetic-procedures, including rhinoplasty, facelift, face-implants, and hair-transplantation were still perceived as "challenging". Both residents, and program-directors felt a need for facial aesthetic training. There was a discrepancy in rating hands-on training, with residents reporting less-active involvement. The residents' most favored methods of cosmetic-surgery-training were, resident-clinics, staff-cosmetic-patients, and cadaver-dissections, respectively. Only two-thirds of programs offered a residents'-clinic. Only 31.5% of residents felt well-prepared integrating cosmetic-surgery into their practice.
CONCLUSION
This survey had the highest response rate among all three surveys. Plastic-surgery-residencies continue to make progress in aesthetic-training, especially in complex-body-contouring and minimally-invasive techniques. Facial aesthetic procedures, in particular, facelift and rhinoplasty, continue to require closer attention.
