Search

Objective This study seeks to assess the status of elective rotations offered in plastic and reconstructive surgery residency programs throughout the country while also qualifying resident and alumni experiences and identifying barriers to offering electives. Design Two prospective surveys were created for (1) program leadership and (2) residents, fellows, and alumni's who have graduated in the last 5 years. Setting This is a multi-institutional survey study. Participants Of 81 plastic and reconstructive surgery programs, 45 programs, and 102 residents, fellows and/or recent graduates responded to survey 2. Results Fifty-six percent of respondents stated that their institution offered electives, 62% of which permitted residents to participate in regional, national, and international rotations primarily in the fifth and sixth years of training. Types of elective rotations completed included aesthetic, craniofacial, sex, hand, and microsurgery. Fifty-three percent responding programs denied barriers to offering elective rotations. When programs noted barriers, the most common were cost to resident/department (28%), institutional Graduate Medical Education policy (22%), and lack of service coverage at the home institution (22%). There was no difference between departments versus divisions offering electives (56.3% vs 57.1%, P = 0.95). Programs that did not offer electives spent an average of 14.6 months on general surgery compared with 9.4 months for programs that did offer electives (P = 0.06). For programs that did not currently offer elective rotations, 71% indicated a desire to do so. Conclusion The primary goal of plastic surgery training programs is to produce plastic surgeons of the highest caliber with regard to safety and competence. Although several regulatory bodies ensure that programs adhere to a similar standard, not all programs have opportunities for residents to experience the breadth of our multifaceted specialty. Elective rotations constitute an excellent supplement to a well-rounded training where gaps may exist.

In May 2014, the US Department of Health and Human Services prohibited insurance discrimination of transgender individuals. Despite this, insurance plans often lack explicit guidelines on gender transition-related care and coverage of surgical procedures is extremely varied. We evaluated the evolution of insurance coverage of gender-affirming care following the 2014 legislative change.Insurance providers were selected based on company market share. We conducted a Web-based search and telephone interviews to identify the corresponding policies related to gender-affirming health care. We compared policy changes made before and after the 2014 US Department of Health and Human Services decision.Of the 92 insurers surveyed, 7% did not have a policy, and 315 policy revisions were documented. After the legislation, a significantly higher proportion of policy revisions were related to coverage of services (36% vs 11%, P0.0001), removal of existing criteria significantly decreased (23% vs 49%, P = 0.0044), and addition of criteria unrelated to international standards sharply increased (32% vs 2%, P = 0.0002). This resulted in reduced coverage of facial feminization, hair transplantation, laryngochondroplasty, and voice modification surgery. However, nipple reconstruction experienced increased coverage. The percentage of revisions to add preauthorization criteria to meet international standards (49% vs 45%, P = 0.6714) or to change terminology (37% vs 27%, P = 0.1055) were similar before and after the legislation.After the transformative legislation in 2014, an increasing number of insurance companies established gender transition-related policies. As more patients seek gender-affirming care, insurers deviate from international guidelines and create additional benchmarks that may act as barriers to care.

Little debate exists regarding the use of preoperative and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of mandibular fracture management; however, employing postoperative prophylactic antibiotics remains an inexact science based on experience rather than evidence. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate scientific literature and report results of an international survey that provide information regarding current practices of the plastic surgery community.Systematic literature review was performed using Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify studies evaluating use of antibiotics in patients suffering from mandible fractures. Level 1, 2, and large retrospective studies were included. Case reports were excluded. Additionally, an E-survey was distributed to all ASPS members and data were collected over a 5-month period through SurveyMonkey.Four hundred twenty-seven articles published before December 2012 were identified. Seventy-one articles met inclusion criteria. Five articles remained when exclusion criteria were applied.ASPS member survey demonstrated 13% response rate (687 responses/5299 questionnaires). Of respondents, 75% placed patients (ORIF group) with open mandible fractures on prophylactic antibiotics for up to 3 days (44.1%), 1 week (54.8%), and more than 1 week (1.1%). Of respondents, 51% placed patients (ORIF group) with closed mandible fracture on prophylactic antibiotics for up to 3 days (50.5%), 1 week (48.6%), and more than 1 week (1%).Critical literature review demonstrates a trend towards no postoperative antibiotic coverage (24 hours) in patients undergoing mandibular ORIF. There is further need for prospective, randomized control trials with a standardized regimen. Our survey elucidates the variability of plastic surgeons' clinical practices.