Summary: Training in aesthetic surgery is a core element in a plastic surgery residency program. Nevertheless, in the past, many studies have shown the lack of resident confidence in aesthetic procedures upon graduation. In recent years, a number of efforts have been made to address this concern, including increasing the required residency aesthetic case requirements and the integration of resident aesthetic clinics to increase exposure and independence in this aspect of training. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of these resident-run clinics and have substantiated their value as an important educational tool in residency training and validated their safety in patient care. In fact, survey studies have shown that though residents today show a markedly increased confidence in their training when compared with the past, they still feel there is room for improvement in areas such as facial and minimally invasive surgeries, along with procedures that require higher patient volume to refine. In this article, we review the current state of aesthetic surgery training during plastic surgery residency and discuss future directions in the field.

No abstract

No abstract

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most commonly utilized breast reconstruction option for post-mastectomy patients. IBR can be approached as either a one-stage reconstruction or a two-stage reconstruction. Facilitated by improvements in surgical technology and advanced techniques, one-stage reconstruction, also known as direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, involves the insertion of an implant at the time of mastectomy. The decision to pursue either a DTI or a two-stage reconstruction is based on several factors, including the patient's overall health, expected risk of postoperative complications, and associated costs to both the patient and hospital.

Today, fat grafting has wide applicability across plastic surgery disciplines, including both aesthetic and reconstructive procedures. However, much controversy has surrounded adipose tissue transfer throughout the 20th century, necessitating extensive research to improve the fat grafting process and to better understand its associated complications and benefits. Initial concerns included the technical difficulties of properly handling and processing adipose to ensure adequate outcomes. As these issues were addressed, more modern concerns were raised by the U.S Food and Drug Administration and the general scientific community regarding the oncological potential of adipose tissue and its potential interference with breast cancer screenings. Today, many formalized clinical studies have evidenced the safety of fat grafting, allowing the procedure to gain widespread popularity and opening avenues for future applications.

Background: Recent changes to the plastic surgery residency training requirements along with a general call for expanded education in cosmetic surgery have encouraged many institutions to incorporate resident aesthetic clinics into their curricula. Although the safety and satisfaction rates of resident aesthetic clinics have been well-studied, their financial viability has not. This study reviews the financial viability of the resident aesthetic clinic at the authors' institution through a cost analysis. Methods: Billing data were analyzed for all patient visits to the resident aesthetic clinic of the authors' institution during calendar year 2018. Data were extracted, including type and anatomical location of each procedure, charges collected, and supplies used. A financial analysis was performed based on fixed and variable costs and gross revenue. Results: A total of 100 unique patients were seen in the clinic over a 1-year period, resulting in 53 operations. This included 15 face, four breast, and 34 body contouring procedures. In addition, 160 cosmetic injections were performed. The gross revenue was $69,955 and the net revenue was $36,600. Conclusions: The resident aesthetic clinic at the authors' institution proved to be financially viable. The authors encourage other institutions to more closely examine the financial state of their resident aesthetic clinics as well. Furthermore, the authors hope that this analysis demonstrates to other programs that, with certain practice models, cost should not be a barrier to initiating and maintaining this valuable training tool.

The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome affects approximately 1 in 4000 live births and involves cardiac defects, immunodeficiency, and endocrine disruption. The complexity of diagnosis and multifaceted care often leads to fragmented management in the short and long term. With the purpose of developing an effective multidisciplinary program, the authors aimed to identify the deficiencies in current screening and referral processes among the teams required in the care for patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. A retrospective chart review was conducted at our institution between 2001 and 2016. Patients with confirmed 22q11.2 deletion diagnoses between the ages of 0 and 28 were included. A list of 15 relevant specialties that should evaluate patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome was created according to established guidelines. Patient medical and demographic information were collected and analyzed. A total of 270 patients were included. Mean age at diagnosis was 3.3 years. On average, patients visited 6 of 15 departments (1–14). Only 8.8% of patients visited >10 specialties. The majority were seen by Cardiology, Allergy and Immunology, Genetics, and Speech (57.4–87.8%). A minority were seen by Hematology and Oncology, Sleep Therapy, and Physical Therapy (13.3–16.3%). Only 34.1% encountered plastic surgery. Negative correlation (−0.128; P = 0.035) was demonstrated between patients’ age at diagnosis and number of specialty teams encountered. This study highlights the current underutilization of services required to manage patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. While screening guidelines have been established, implementation can be challenging as it requires efficient care coordination between teams. Moving forward, the authors believe that a multidisciplinary clinical approach to streamline patient care is necessary.

Background: Infections in the pediatric population are a less well studied topic in hand surgery. Crucial aspects of the management of pediatric hand infections differ from adults, though much of current treatment is generalized from adult care. This study evaluates our clinical experience with regards to the epidemiology, management, and outcomes of pediatric hand infections requiring operative intervention. Methods: A 7-year retrospective chart review was performed of all pediatric patients who required operative intervention for hand infections at Texas Children's Hospital. Clinical information was collected and analyzed, including demographics, infection characteristics, management, and outcomes. Results: Fifty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria for our study over the 7-year period. Of these, 7% (n = 4) had a preexisting diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, and 5% (n = 3) had a recent history of upper extremity infections. The most common infection was a discrete abscess, whereas urgent/emergent conditions represented 25% (n = 14) of infections. Radiographic changes consistent with osteomyelitis were present in over onequarter of patients (n = 13, 23%). The median length of hospital stay was 3 days (95% confidence interval: 3.05-5.05) and the most common pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (n = 33, 58%), with slightly more being methicillin sensitive (MSSA) than resistant (MRSA) (n = 19, 33% vs. n = 14, 25%). The incidence of reoperation was 12.5% (n = 7). Conclusions: Hand infections are a common problem in the pediatric population. Cases tend to be associated with accidental trauma and discrete abscesses colonized by MSSA/MRSA. The vast majority of cases require only one operation and a short course of wound care before discharge.