Scholarlink

Background <p>The resident aesthetic clinic is a practice in which plastic surgery residents oversee patient care, thereby gaining autonomy and hands-on experience in cosmetic surgery.</p> Objective <p>This study evaluates outcomes of resident-led cosmetic breast surgeries in a resident aesthetic clinic compared to attending-led procedures.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent cosmetic breast surgery at a single institution’s resident clinic from 2012 to 2021. Resident-led cases were matched with attending-led cases, and comparisons in demographic information, procedure type, operation details, follow-up, re-operations, and complications were performed.</p> Results <p>Among 134 female patients at a resident aesthetic clinic, 27 (20.1%) underwent breast augmentation, 7 (5.2%) had mastopexy, and 12 (9.0%) received augmentation mastopexy, with a matched control group of attending-led cases. Residents favored silicone implants and inframammary incisions, while the attending preferred saline implants and peri-areolar incisions (<i>p</i>&#xa0;&lt;&#xa0;0.001). For breast augmentation, complication rates for breast augmentation were similar between residents and attendings (18.5% vs. 11.1%, <i>p</i>&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.704), with identical re-operation rates (11.1%; <i>p</i>&#xa0;=&#xa0;1.000). In mastopexy, residents had no complications, while attendings had a 25% complication rate (<i>p</i>&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.467). In augmentation mastopexy, complication rates were 25.0% for residents and 33.3% for attendings (<i>p</i>&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.500), with lower re-operation rates in residents (0.0% vs. 16.7%, <i>p</i>&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.238).</p> Conclusion <p>Resident-led cosmetic breast procedures demonstrate comparable safety outcomes to attending-led surgeries, supporting the efficacy of resident training in aesthetic surgery and highlighting the importance of resident-led clinics in surgical education.</p> Level of Evidence III <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="https://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Enhancing Aesthetic Breast Surgery Training: A 10-Year Comparison of Outcomes Between Resident- and Attending-Led Cosmetic Breast Procedures at a Single Institution

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月22日

查看全文
  • Hilary Y. Liu,
  • Christopher J. Fedor,
  • Sumaarg Pandya,
  • Tiffany Jeong,
  • Mario Alessandri Bonetti,
  • José Antonio Arellano,
  • Jeffrey A. Gusenoff,
  • Vu T. Nguyen,
  • Guy M. Stofman,
  • Francesco M. Egro

摘要

Background

The resident aesthetic clinic is a practice in which plastic surgery residents oversee patient care, thereby gaining autonomy and hands-on experience in cosmetic surgery.

Objective

This study evaluates outcomes of resident-led cosmetic breast surgeries in a resident aesthetic clinic compared to attending-led procedures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent cosmetic breast surgery at a single institution’s resident clinic from 2012 to 2021. Resident-led cases were matched with attending-led cases, and comparisons in demographic information, procedure type, operation details, follow-up, re-operations, and complications were performed.

Results

Among 134 female patients at a resident aesthetic clinic, 27 (20.1%) underwent breast augmentation, 7 (5.2%) had mastopexy, and 12 (9.0%) received augmentation mastopexy, with a matched control group of attending-led cases. Residents favored silicone implants and inframammary incisions, while the attending preferred saline implants and peri-areolar incisions (p < 0.001). For breast augmentation, complication rates for breast augmentation were similar between residents and attendings (18.5% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.704), with identical re-operation rates (11.1%; p = 1.000). In mastopexy, residents had no complications, while attendings had a 25% complication rate (p = 0.467). In augmentation mastopexy, complication rates were 25.0% for residents and 33.3% for attendings (p = 0.500), with lower re-operation rates in residents (0.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.238).

Conclusion

Resident-led cosmetic breast procedures demonstrate comparable safety outcomes to attending-led surgeries, supporting the efficacy of resident training in aesthetic surgery and highlighting the importance of resident-led clinics in surgical education.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.