Background: Previous studies have provided recommendations for increasing female leadership in academic plastic surgery. This study quantifies the extent to which these recommendations have been met in plastic surgery residency programs and identifies remaining institutional barriers to the advancement of women in academic plastic surgery. Methods: An electronic survey was designed to quantify select recommendations for promoting female leadership in academic plastic surgery. The survey was distributed to either a female faculty member or a male program director at each academic plastic surgery program. An optional phone interview discussing current barriers to women’s advancement followed the survey. Results: Forty-nine of 92 survey recipients participated (52.7 percent response rate). Women constituted 25 percent of faculty, 22 percent of program directors, and 20 percent of program leaders of participating programs. Programs on average provided three of 11 resources. Programs with female leaders provided 6.20 resources versus 2.28 resources at departments with male chairs (p = 0.015). Programs with female program directors provided 5.50 resources versus 2.18 resources at programs with male program directors (p = 0.008). Of the 49 survey respondents, nine completed the interview (18.4 percent completion rate). The most frequently identified barriers to aspiring women leaders were opaque promotion criteria (cited by 77.8 percent of interviewees), motherhood bias (77.8 percent), and unequal recruitment practices (55.6 percent). Conclusions: The presence of a female chair or program director is associated with a greater quantity of resources for promoting female leaders. Remaining barriers to women seeking academic leadership positions include compensation and promotion disparities, motherhood bias, and unequal recruitment practices.

No abstract

Despite a recent increase in literature focusing on postmastectomy breast reconstruction disparities, the majority focuses on identifying vulnerable populations with inadequate progression to second (understanding) and third (reducing) phases. Increasing research funding, availability of language-concordant and culturally concordant educational materials, and advocacy and sociopolitical awareness within the plastic surgery community is necessary to advance research on postmastectomy breast reconstruction and, ultimately, eliminate it.

Background Occipital neuralgia (ON) is a primary headache disorder characterized by severe, paroxysmal, shooting or stabbing pain in the distribution of the greater occipital, lesser occipital, and/or third occipital nerves. Both medical and surgical options exist for treating headaches related to ON. The purposes of this study are to summarize the current state of surgical ON management through a systematic review of the literature and, in doing so, objectively identify future directions of investigation. Methods We performed a systematic review of primary literature on surgical management for ON of at least level IV evidence. Included studies were analyzed for level of evidence, therapeutic intervention, study design, sample size, follow-up duration, outcomes measured, results, and risk of bias. Results Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. All 22 studies used patient-reported pain scores as an outcome metric. Other outcome metrics included complication rates (7 studies; 32%), patient satisfaction (7 studies; 32%), quality of life (7 studies; 18%), and analgesic usage (3 studies; 14%). Using the ROBINS-I tool for risk of bias in nonrandomized studies, 7 studies (32%) were found to be at critical risk of bias, whereas the remaining 15 studies (68%) were found to be at serious risk of bias. Conclusions Greater occipital nerve decompression seems to be a useful treatment modality for medically refractory ON, but further prospective, randomized data are required.

Background: A major challenge in face transplantation (FT) is the limited donor allograft pool. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of cross-sex FT (CSFT) for donor pool expansion by: (1) comparing craniomaxillofacial metrics following CSFT versus same-sex FT (SSFT); and (2) evaluating the public and medical professionals’ perception of CSFT. Methods: Seven cadaveric FTs were performed, resulting in both CSFT and SSFT. Precision of bony and soft tissue inset was evaluated by comparing pre- versus post-operative cephalometric and anthropometric measurements. Fidelity of the FT compared to the virtual plan was assessed by imaging overlay techniques. Surveys were administered to medical professionals, medical students, and general population to evaluate opinions regarding CSFT. Results: Five CSFTs and 2 SSFTs were performed. Comparison of recipients versus post-transplant outcomes showed that only the bigonial and medial intercanthal distances were statistically different between CSFT and SSFT (P = 0.012 and P = 0.010, respectively). Of the 213 survey participants, more were willing to donate for and undergo SSFT, compared with CSFT (donate: 59.6% versus 53.0%, P = 0.001; receive: 79.5% versus 52.3%, P < 0.001). If supported by research, willingness to receive a CSFT significantly increased to 65.6% (P < 0.001). On non-blinded and blinded assessments, 62.9% and 79% of responses rated the CSFT superior or equal to SSFT, respectively. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates similar anthropometric and cephalometric outcomes for CSFT and SSFT. Participants were more reticent to undergo CSFT, with increased willingness if supported by research. CSFT may represent a viable option for expansion of the donor pool in future patients prepared to undergo transplantation.

Background: Gender-affirming mastectomy has become one of the most frequently performed procedures for transgender and nonbinary patients. Although there are a variety of potential surgical approaches available, the impact of technique on outcomes remains unclear. Here we present our experience performing periareolar and double incision mastectomies, with a focus on comparing patient demographics, preoperative risk factors, and surgical outcomes and complication rates between techniques. Methods: Retrospective review identified patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy by the senior author between 2017 and 2020. Patients were stratified according to surgical technique, with demographics and postoperative outcomes compared between groups. Results: In total, 490 patients underwent gender-affirming mastectomy during the study period. An estimated 96 patients underwent periareolar mastectomy, whereas 390 underwent double incision mastectomy. Demographics were similar between groups, and there were no differences in rates of hematoma (3.1% versus 5.6%, respectively; P = 0.90), seroma (33.3% versus 36.4%; P = 0.52), or revision procedures (14.6% versus 15.8% P = 0.84) based on technique. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate no difference in the rates of postoperative complications or revision procedures based on surgical technique. These results also suggest that with an experienced surgeon and proper patient selection, both techniques of gender-affirming mastectomy can be performed safely and with comparable outcomes.

Background: Gender-affirming mastectomy, or “top surgery,” has become one of the most frequently performed procedures for transgender and nonbinary patients. However, management of perioperative testosterone therapy remains controversial. Despite a lack of supporting evidence, many surgeons require cessation of testosterone before top surgery. This is the first study to compare complication rates in patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy with and without discontinuation of perioperative testosterone. Methods: This retrospective review included patients undergoing top surgery by the senior author between 2017 and 2020. Reflecting a change in the senior author’s practice, before May of 2019, all patients were required to discontinue testosterone before surgery; all patients treated after this point continued their testosterone regimens throughout the perioperative period. Patients were stratified according to testosterone regimen and perioperative hormone management, with demographic characteristics and postoperative outcomes compared among groups. Results: A total of 490 patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy during the study period were included. Testosterone was held perioperatively in 175 patients and continued in 211 patients; 104 patients never received testosterone therapy. Demographic characteristics were similar among groups and there was no difference in rates of hematoma (2.9% versus 2.8% versus 2.9%, respectively; P = 0.99), seroma (1.1% versus 0% versus 1%, respectively; P = 0.31), venous thromboembolism (0% versus 0.5% versus 0%, respectively; P = 0.99), or overall complications (6.9% versus 4.3% versus 5.8%, respectively; P = 0.54). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate no difference in postoperative complication rates among groups. Whereas further investigation is warranted, our data suggest that routine cessation of testosterone in the perioperative period is not necessary for patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

No abstract