No abstract

Purpose: Limited available pediatric plastic surgery positions fail to accommodate the increasing number of craniofacial fellows trained annually. However, many adult indications have increased the demand for craniofacial expertise. Given new opportunities available to craniofacial surgeons, the authors aim to evaluate career prospects for recent craniofacial graduates and explore additional career opportunities. Methods: Upon approval from the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons (ASCFS), an anonymous online survey invitation was sent to craniofacial fellows who graduated from 2016 to 2021. Respondents were queried regarding their craniofacial fellowship and subsequent career prospects. Results: A total of 124 eligible participants were identified, of which 30 (24.2%) responded. Craniomaxillofacial case distribution at respondents' current practices varied, with 42.3% reporting a 50% to 75% craniofacial caseload and 38.5% reporting less than 25%. Craniofacial trauma reconstruction was performed most at current positions (92.3%), followed by general reconstruction (92.3%) and breast surgery (69.2%); the least commonly performed was facial feminization (23.1%). Most respondents desired an increased craniomaxillofacial caseload (65.4%). However, 26.9% were unable to secure their current position before fellowship completion, and 80.0% cited limited craniofacial job availability. Recommendations to improve fellowship comprehensiveness and increase candidate competitiveness included increased facial feminization, facial esthetic, and microsurgical experience. Conclusion: To adapt to trends in craniomaxillofacial surgery, ASCFS should encourage developing fellowships that increase exposure to gender-affirming, adult craniofacial reconstruction, orthognathic, and skeletal facial esthetic surgery. Expanding training beyond congenital deformities can provide additional employment opportunities while maintaining excellence and innovation in facial plastic surgery.

BACKGROUND:The influence of research team structure on institutional scholarly activity, culture, and productivity is sparsely reported in the literature. Here, we present a single institution's experience with the development of a novel divisional plastic surgery research team structure, predominantly focused on clinical research and its impact on research productivity. members to help develop their skill sets. Compared to 2018-2019, there was a significant increase in publications by 131% (16 vs 37), abstract acceptances by 269% (16 vs 59), podium presentations by 820% (5 vs 36), and poster presentations by 18% (11 vs 13) (p<0.037).

Background: Despite rules set forth by the National Resident Matching Program and American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), prohibited questions during the residency interview process are well documented. This study describes the prevalence of these encounters by surveying residency applicants to integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) programs for the 2022 match cycle. Methods: An anonymous 16-question REDCap survey was distributed to 2022 cycle applicants of a single PRS program. The applicants were queried about demographic information, interview experience, and questions deemed illegal by the AAMC/NRMP guidelines. Results: One hundred survey responses were attained for a 33.1% response rate. The majority of respondents were aged 26-30 (76%), women (53%), and white (53%); 33% received 15+ interviews for the application cycle. Seventy-eight percent of respondents reported being asked a prohibited question during at least one interview, with the most common "illegal" question categories being number/ranking of interviews (42%), marital status (33%), career balance (25%), and race/ethnicity (22%). Only 25.6% of applicants considered the subject matter inappropriate, whereas 42.3% were unsure. Although no applicant took action to report the potentially illegal scenarios, 30% said that their experiences influenced their rank list. Conclusions: Our survey study revealed that prohibited interview questions in PRS residency interviews are common. Permissible lines of questioning and discussion between programs and applicants during residency interviews have been defined by AAMC. Institutions should provide guidance and training to all participants. Applicants should be made aware of and empowered to utilize available anonymous reporting tools.

No abstract