Search

Sex diversity among plastic surgery and its subspecialties faculties lags behind many medical specialties. Despite the significant evidence in favor of diversity in leadership, female presence in high-ranking positions in medicine is lacking across multiple specialties. In this study, we aim to evaluate sex disparity among faculty across craniofacial fellowship programs by comparing the disparities among total number of faculty, program directors, years in practice, and academic rank. Our sample included 354 individuals including 193 craniofacial surgery journal editorial board members, 130 craniofacial surgery academic faculty members, and 31 craniofacial surgery association board members. A significant difference (P-value0.0001) was seen among male and female craniofacial surgery faculty with 84.6% males. Faculty members were further subdivided by academic rank. A significant difference was found between the number of male and female faculty members at all academic positions (P-value =0.043). Of 41 full professors, 2.4% were female. There were 42 associate professors queried with 14.3% female. Similarly, 43 assistant professors were identified with 32.0% female. Years in practice after completing terminal training were analyzed across the academic faculty. There was a significant difference in the number of male and female faculty members across all experience levels (P-value =0.0037). Among the faculty with10 years since completion of terminal training, 32.4 % were female. For faculty with 10 to 20 years after post-terminal training, 19.6% were female. For those with 20 to 30 years of experience, 0% were female. Finally, for the faculty with over 30 years since graduation, 5.9% were female. Board membership in 2 craniofacial surgery organizations was analyzed: the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association and the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons. Among the 17 board members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 8 (47.1%) were female. For the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, 5 (35.7%) were female. Data were collected for 193 editorial board members from 2 craniofacial surgery journals. There was a significant difference between the number of male and female members across both journals (χ2 value: 33.3570; P-value0.0001). Among 56 editorial board members from Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 26 (46.4%) members were female. In comparison, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery has 24.8% female editorial board members. Sex diversity among faculty members is really important and should be brought into light to highlight and improve areas of particular importance and of tremendous potential impact. Given our results, surgical residencies and fellowship programs should begin to show concrete commitment and increase their efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty not only for the educational benefit but more importantly to achieve a higher level of care for all.

The vast majority of skin cancers can be classified into two main types: melanoma and keratinocyte carcinomas. The most common keratinocyte carcinomas include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Multiple familial syndromes have been identified that can increase the risk of developing SCC, BCC, and/or melanoma. The major syndromes include oculocutaneous albinism for SCC, basal cell nevus syndrome for BCC, familial atypical multiple mole-melanoma syndrome, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome for melanoma. In addition, familial syndromes that can predispose individuals to all three major skin cancers include xeroderma pigmentosum and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. This review highlights the epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and etiology of the major and minor syndromes to better identify and manage these conditions. Current investigational trials in genomic medicine are making their way in revolutionizing the clinical diagnosis of these familial syndromes for earlier preventative measures and improvement of long-term prognosis in these patients.

Breast implant surgery remains one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Implant exchange can be complicated by unavailability of medical records or implant identification cards. Using chest imaging of 154 breast implants, an algorithm for estimating breast implant volume was generated. Based on four simple measurements and patient body mass index, a free, online calculator was created with a mean error of volume estimate of less than 1 cm