Nazerali, Rahim

Objective Preparation for a career in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) begins long before the residency application process. Given the challenging nature of matching into integrated PRS, the expectations for competitive applicants, including research productivity and networking at conferences, incur significant expenses. Our study is the first to detail the comprehensive costs of pursuing PRS, highlighting many hidden expenses that precede the application process. Design and Setting A branched logic survey was created to inquire about respondents' demographics, personal finances, expenses related to education and research, and opinions on the comprehensive costs of pursuing PRS. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Participants The survey was distributed to PRS residency applicants in the 2023–2024 cycle and to senior members of a virtual PRS research group. The survey achieved a 28.9% response rate. Results Most respondents were fourth-year medical students (57.3%) and attended a school without a home integrated residency program (42.7%). Of students who pursued a research year (37.1%), 40.7% were unpaid, and 53.3% reported living expenses exceeding their income. Most attended more than 5 PRS conferences (29.9%), corresponding to a median total cost of $2000 to $3000. Fourth-year students typically participated in 3 away rotations (40.0%) at a cost of $6000 to $9000. The financial burden of pursuing a career in PRS, including PRS-related extracurricular activities and application-associated costs, is estimated to be $33,400–$45,479. Nearly all respondents (96.6%) believed this cost was too high or excessively high; however, 93.3% determined that it was probably or definitely worth a career in PRS. Conclusions The lofty costs associated with pursuing PRS are unsustainable for many. Additional efforts should be made to reduce financial barriers for PRS applicants. Ensuring funding to all students pursuing a research year, diversifying scholarships for conference attendance and away rotations, increasing loan forgiveness opportunities, and expanding use of lower-cost application options such as the Plastic Surgery Common Application are potential solutions to offset the cost of pursuing PRS.

ABSTRACTBackgroundTactile sensory recovery in autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) has been shown to prevent injuries and improve quality of life. However, the studies comparing neurotized versus non‐neurotized outcomes are still controversial due to methodological heterogeneity. This review uses consistent and objective outcomes to evaluate the current evidence's qualitative characteristics and quantitative tactile sensory recovery.MethodsWe conducted a systematic electronic literature search from database inception through 10 February 2024, of the following databases: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CINAHL to identify all studies reporting outcomes of tactile sensory recovery using the Semmes‐Weinstein Measuring scale in free‐flap ABR comparing neurotization versus non‐neurotization. The SWM scale score, demographic characteristics, and surgical features were extracted from each study. Due to the data heterogeneity within the studies, we transformed the data into means and pooled the qualitative information.ResultsWe identified 264 articles. After thorough screening, 12 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Finally, 7 were quantitatively analyzed with a total of 251 breasts that underwent ABR with free flap neurotization and 244 breasts without neurotization. This revealed a mean SWM score difference of −0.67 and a significant p‐value < 0.05. A subgroup DIEP flap analysis performed for 177 neurotized compared to 175 non‐eurotized flaps yielded a significant mean difference of −0.86 p < 0.05. There were no significant differences between groups in age (48.8 vs. 49.8, p = 0.5), history of chemotherapy (72 vs. 74, p = 0.91), radiotherapy (61 vs. 56, p = 0.84), or follow‐up time (21.85 vs. 25.09 months, p = < 0.05) that could have influenced tactile sensory recovery.ConclusionNeurotization in free‐flap ABR could allow better tactile sensory recovery than the spontaneous sensation gained without it. The additional surgical time required for coaptation is short, and no studies have reported associated complications, making it a safe procedure that can potentially improve patients´ quality of life. Nonetheless, higher‐quality studies, such as randomized control trials with standardized sensation testing and more rigorous methodologies, are needed before making final clinical recommendations.

Background Aesthetic outcomes of unilateral cleft lip repairs have important psychosocial implications for patients who are heavily influenced by social perceptions. Online crowdsourcing offers the unique potential to efficiently recruit large numbers of laypeople to assess public perception. The aim of this study was to use the online crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk to compare the postoperative outcomes of Fisher, Millard, and Mohler cleft lip repair techniques. Methods Two hundred fifty-four participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk to evaluate 29 cropped and deidentified photographs of children, 8 photographs were controls without cleft lips and 21 were children with unilateral cleft lips who had undergone Fisher, Millard, or Mohler repairs (7 in each group). Respondents were asked whether a scar was present, whether they would be personally satisfied with the surgical result and used a Likert scale from 1 to 5 to rate overall appearance, scar severity, and nasal symmetry. Results Fewer respondents reported that a scar was present when assessing postoperative photographs of Fisher repairs (70.3 ± 8.6%) compared with Millard (92.0 ± 1.5%) or Mohler (88.8 ± 3.1%) repairs. Average rating of scar severity was also lower for Fisher (1.9) compared with Millard (2.6) or Mohler (2.6) repairs. Average ratings of nose symmetry, general appearance, and satisfaction with operative result were not statistically significantly different between the repair groups. Conclusions This study demonstrates the potential of online crowdsourcing to assess public perception of plastic surgery outcomes. The Mechanical Turk platform offers a reduction in selection bias, ease of study design, and enhanced efficiency of large-scale participant recruitment. Results indicate that the Fisher repair led to the most favored aesthetic outcomes compared with the Millard and Mohler techniques, particularly with regard to scar severity. Crowdsourcing is a powerful tool to assess layperson perception of plastic surgery outcomes and can be used to better guide surgical decision-making.