This study provides a comprehensive definition of intraoperative expertise, with greater insight into the complex cognitive processes that seem to underlie optimal performance. This framework provides trainees and other nonexperts with the necessary information to use in deliberate practice and the creation of effective thought habits that characterize expert performance. It may help to identify gaps in performance, and to isolate root causes of surgical errors with the ultimate goal of improving patient safety.

Background: The resurgence of prepectoral breast reconstruction has brought strict patient inclusion and exclusion criteria by numerous authors. This article provides an overview of a single surgeon’s experience with 201 patients, 313 breasts using immediate, direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. The article compares surgical outcomes of different patient cohorts to elucidate risk factors that may predispose patients toward developing complications. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed, identifying all patients who underwent prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction from June of 2016 to June of 2018. Results: A total of 201 patients representing 313 breasts were included. A midlateral incision was used in 157 breasts (50.2 percent), followed by a skin-reducing, Wise-pattern in 90 breasts (28.8 percent). Acellular dermal matrix was used in 243 breasts (77.6 percent), free nipple grafts were used in 39 breasts (12.5 percent), and postmastectomy radiation therapy was used in 58 breasts (18.5 percent). Complications requiring operative intervention occurred in 24 breasts (7.7 percent), and minor complications occurred in 23 breasts (7.3 percent). There were no significant differences in complication rates for (1) acellular dermal matrix use versus non–acellular dermal matrix use, (2) Wise-pattern versus other incision, or (3) postmastectomy radiotherapy (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This represents the largest single-surgeon, direct-to-implant prepectoral cohort in the literature. Surgical complications did not differ with acellular dermal matrix use, incision selection, and the use of postmastectomy radiation therapy. There may be an association between acellular dermal matrix use and major complications and radiotherapy with minor complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Background: Simulation has gained notable recognition for its role as an effective training and assessment modality in the present era of competency-based medical education. Despite the well-documented efficacy of both live and cadaveric animal models, several ethical, financial, and accessibility issues persist with their use. Lower fidelity nonbiological simulators have gained recognition for their ability to circumvent these challenges. This systematic review reports on all prosthetic and virtual reality simulators in use for microsurgery training, with an emphasis on each model’s complexity, characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and validation measures taken. Methods: A systematic search was performed using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Search terms were those pertaining to prosthetic and virtual reality models with relevance to microsurgical training in plastic surgery. Three independent reviewers evaluated all articles retrieved based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria for review, reporting on 20 basic prosthetic models, 20 intermediate models, 13 advanced models, and six virtual reality simulators. Conclusions: A comprehensive summary has been compiled of all nonbiological simulators in use for microsurgery training in plastic surgery, demonstrating efficacy for the acquisition and retention of microsurgical skills. Metrics-based validation efforts, however, were often lacking in the literature. As plastic surgery programs continue to innovate, ensure accountability, and safely meet today’s training standards, prosthetic simulators are set to play a larger role in the development of a standardized, ethical, accessible, and objectively measurable microsurgery training curriculum for the modern-day plastic and reconstructive surgery resident.

No abstract

The majority of tweets posted on Twitter contained inaccurate information that can lead to misperception among the public. Understanding emotional triggers for social sharing provides insight into what is most appealing. To enhance public uptake and sharing of tweets, plastic surgeons can use these findings to promote the specialty using relaxed/content emotions or excitement in their social media posts.

No abstract

No abstract

Recently, prepectoral reconstruction has dominated the landscape of breast research and symposia. 1 This technique was reexamined after addressing numerous shortcomings of a submuscular reconstruction, not limited to animation deformity, pain with the expansion of a limited subpectoral space, and issues related to postmastectomy radiation