Background Plastic surgery plays an essential role in the treatment of gender dysphoria. International standards of care currently consider genital and chest surgeries to be medically necessary. Ancillary procedures such as facial surgery, chondrolaryngoplasty, hair restoration/removal, and body contouring are considered cosmetic surgeries except in individual circumstances. Objective The authors sought to assess the frequency of coverage provision for ancillary transition-related surgeries through a cross-sectional analysis of US insurance policies. Methods The authors selected insurance companies based on state enrollment data and market share. Policies were identified through web-based search and telephone interviews. A list of eligible procedures was compiled and grouped into 5 categories: body masculinization, body feminization, facial procedures, hair restoration/removal, and chondrolaryngoplasty. Medical necessity criteria from publicly accessible policies were then abstracted. Results Sixty-one insurance companies held an established policy. One-third of these policies offered favorable coverage for at least 1 ancillary procedure. Chondrolaryngoplasty was the most covered category (26%, n = 16), whereas body masculinization was the least covered (8%, n = 5). Almost two-thirds of the companies with favorable policies listed coverage criteria. We identified 4 recurring requirements: age, hormone therapy, continuous living in a congruent gender role, and referral from a mental health professional. Conclusions There is a low prevalence of US insurance coverage for ancillary gender surgeries and wide variability in coverage criteria. Reevaluation of ancillary transition-related procedures from cosmetic to medically necessary based on clinical judgement or establishment of defined coverage criteria may augment coverage and better address the needs of transgender patients.

Background: Research productivity forms a vital part of the resident selection process and can markedly affect the chance of a successful match. Current reports regarding the publication record among prospective orthopaedic surgery residents are likely inaccurate. Potential applicants have a poor understanding of the strength of their research credentials in comparison to other candidates. Methods: We identified matched applicants from the 2013 to 2017 orthopaedic surgery residency application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis of these residents using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify published articles and calculate the h-index of each applicant at the time of application. Details were collected on medical school, advanced degrees, publication type, first authorship, and article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery. Results: We included 3,199 matched orthopaedic surgery applicants. At the time of application, the median h-index was 0, the median number of publications was 1, and 40% of successful candidates did not hold any publications. The h-index (R 0.08, P < 0.0001) and median number of publications of matched orthopaedic surgery residency candidates significantly increased (R 0.09, P < 0.0001) across application cycles. Furthermore, the proportion of matched applicants without publications at the time of application significantly decreased (R −0.90, P = 0.0350). Conversely, the percentage of articles first-authored by applicants decreased (R −0.96, P = 0.0093), but article relatedness to orthopaedic surgery remained constant (R 0.82, P = 0.0905). Strikingly, notable changes were observed in the type of articles published by successful applicants: the proportion of preclinical studies decreased (R −0.07, P = 0.0041), whereas clinical research articles increased (R 0.07, P = 0.0024). Conclusion: The publication count held by successful orthopaedic surgery applicants is substantially lower than the nationally reported average. Matched orthopaedic surgery candidates demonstrate increasingly impressive research achievements each application cycle. However, increased academic productivity comes at the cost of reduced project responsibility and a shift toward faster-to-publish articles.

Introduction In May 2014, the US Department of Health and Human Services prohibited insurance discrimination of transgender individuals. Despite this, insurance plans often lack explicit guidelines on gender transition-related care and coverage of surgical procedures is extremely varied. We evaluated the evolution of insurance coverage of gender-affirming care following the 2014 legislative change. Methods Insurance providers were selected based on company market share. We conducted a Web-based search and telephone interviews to identify the corresponding policies related to gender-affirming health care. We compared policy changes made before and after the 2014 US Department of Health and Human Services decision. Results Of the 92 insurers surveyed, 7% did not have a policy, and 315 policy revisions were documented. After the legislation, a significantly higher proportion of policy revisions were related to coverage of services (36% vs 11%, P < 0.0001), removal of existing criteria significantly decreased (23% vs 49%, P = 0.0044), and addition of criteria unrelated to international standards sharply increased (32% vs 2%, P = 0.0002). This resulted in reduced coverage of facial feminization, hair transplantation, laryngochondroplasty, and voice modification surgery. However, nipple reconstruction experienced increased coverage. The percentage of revisions to add preauthorization criteria to meet international standards (49% vs 45%, P = 0.6714) or to change terminology (37% vs 27%, P = 0.1055) were similar before and after the legislation. Conclusions After the transformative legislation in 2014, an increasing number of insurance companies established gender transition–related policies. As more patients seek gender-affirming care, insurers deviate from international guidelines and create additional benchmarks that may act as barriers to care.

Various synthetic bone substitutes are not suitable for reconstructing critical-size bone defects. This study tested whether a bioglass-β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) monoblock is effective for repairing critical-size segmental bone defects if combined with a vascularized periosteal flap and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2. A femoral osteotomy with a gap size of 20 mm was created and stabilized using a plate in 40 rabbits.The defect was left untreated (group A) or repaired using a monoblock (group B), a monoblock with a vascularized periosteal flap (group C), or a monoblock with a vascularized periosteal flap and BMP-2 (group D). Bone regeneration, vascularization and monoblock degradation were analyzed after four and eight weeks using x-ray, hematoxylin-eosin, CD34 immunohistochemical and Masson's trichrome staining observation and histometric evaluation. The radiographic grading score showed a time-dependent increase from weeks 4 to 8. At 8-week postoperative, the total new regenerated bone in groups C and D was 20.0 ± 0.3 and 55.5 ± 8.0 mm , respectively, which was significantly greater than in group B. Conversely, group D showed less residual monoblock than did group C. An increase in microvessel density was also observed in groups C and D compared with group B at 4 and 8 weeks postoperative, respectively. This study suggests that bioglass-β-TCP monoblock alone exhibits poor potential to repair a 20-mm femoral defect. However, supplementation with a vascularized periosteal flap and BMP-2 led to effective vascularization and reliable bone regeneration throughout the monoblock, with concordant material degradation in a timely manner. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 106B: 2148-2156, 2018.

No abstract