Search

Background:. The Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) was introduced as a free and specialty-specific application for plastic surgery applicants in the 2020–2021 cycle. Now in its second year, the PSCA is being piloted by all integrated residency programs with future plans to replace Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) in the 2022–2023 cycle. This study aimed to explore applicant perspectives related to the PSCA and ERAS applications. Methods:. An anonymous survey was distributed to integrated plastic surgery residency applicants from the 2021–2022 application cycle. Participants were asked to provide basic demographic information, their perspectives of the PSCA, and overall application preference. Results:. One hundred forty (43.1%) applicants completed the survey. Nearly, 63% of applicants responded “slightly well” or “not well at all” regarding their ability to highlight at least one aspect of their application. Forty-one percent of applicants believed ERAS best highlighted the strengths of their application compared with 27% who believed their strengths were better highlighted by the PSCA. Seventy-nine percent reported the cost savings associated with the PSCA were “very” or “extremely important.” Overall, 63% of respondents reported a preference to apply with the PSCA alone. Conclusions:. This is the first study to provide insight on applicants' perspectives of the PSCA. Although the majority preferred applying with the PSCA, there may be challenges with transitioning to this application solely. Future iterations of the PSCA may aim to ameliorate functionality concerns, optimize application content, and incorporate plastic surgery-specific information that may be important to selection committees.

Background:. The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has since been followed by a gradual resumption of elective surgery. Many individuals remain cautious about visiting a hospital or clinic to undergo surgery. As plastic surgeons are starting to resume elective surgery at this time, it is important to understand the perspectives of potential patients and the concerns they may have. Methods:. A survey was distributed to participants in the United States through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk) during March of 2021. Participants were surveyed regarding their views on the severity of COVID-19, vaccination status, and how much COVID-19 has affected their interest in undergoing surgery. Results:. Thirty-nine percent of respondents were either no longer willing or less willing to undergo elective plastic surgery. Seventy-three percent of respondents felt comfortable going to an office for a consultation. With regards to feeling comfortable visiting a hospital, 43.4% reported they would feel safe, 36% felt they would feel safe only if they could be discharged on the same day, and 30.6% reported not feeling safe. Fifty-two percent of respondents reported feeling comfortable undergoing surgery now or within the next year. Respondents who do not think COVID-19 is still a major health issue were more likely to still want plastic surgery. Conclusion:. The results of this study highlight that the majority of patients, regardless of vaccination status, currently feel comfortable undergoing elective plastic surgery, particularly in an office setting. Plastic surgeons may expect to see a return in demand for elective procedures in the coming months.

Background The Heart Team approach is ascribed a Class I recommendation in contemporary guidelines for revascularization of complex coronary artery disease. However, limited data are available regarding the decision‐making and outcomes of patients based on this strategy. Methods and Results One hundred sixty‐six high‐risk coronary artery disease patients underwent Heart Team evaluation at a single institution between January 2015 and November 2018. We prospectively collected data on demographics, symptoms, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality/Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (STS‐PROM/SYNTAX) scores, mode of revascularization, and outcomes. Mean age was 70.0 years; 122 (73.5%) patients were male. Prevalent comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (51.8%), peripheral artery disease (38.6%), atrial fibrillation (27.1%), end‐stage renal disease on dialysis (13.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.7%). Eighty‐seven (52.4%) patients had New York Heart Association III‐IV and 112 (67.5%) had Canadian Cardiovascular Society III‐IV symptomatology. Sixty‐seven (40.4%) patients had left main and 118 (71.1%) had 3‐vessel coronary artery disease. The median STS‐PROM was 3.6% (interquartile range 1.9, 8.0) and SYNTAX score was 26 (interquartile range 20, 34). The median number of physicians per Heart Team meeting was 6 (interquartile range 5, 8). Seventy‐nine (47.6%) and 49 (29.5%) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. With increasing STS‐PROM (low, intermediate, high operative risk), coronary artery bypass graft was performed less often (47.9%, 18.5%, 15.2%) and optimal medical therapy was recommended more often (11.3%, 18.5%, 30.3%). There were no trends in recommendation for coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or optimal medical therapy by SYNTAX score tertiles. In‐hospital and 30‐day mortality was 3.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Conclusions Integrating a multidisciplinary Heart Team into institutional practice is feasible and provides a formalized approach to evaluating complex coronary artery disease patients. The comprehensive assessment of surgical, anatomical, and other risk scores using a decision aid may guide appropriate, evidence‐based management within this team‐based construct.