The ACAPS and SESPRS Surveys to Identify the Most Influential Innovators and Innovations in Plastic Surgery

Hultman, C. Scott; Friedstat, Jonathan

doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000089

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent survey of the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons identified the ten most important plastic surgery innovations of the 20th century; eight of these are consistently included in the academic program of the FRTM (myocutaneous flaps, microsurgery, craniofacial surgery, skin grafting, transplantation, distraction osteogenesis, fat grafting, and rigid fixation of fractures/osteotomies). 20 The same survey listed the ten most important plastic surgery innovations of the modern era, and six of these are closely related to facial reconstruction and are also a large part of the FRTM curriculum (face transplantation, fat grafting, biologic scaffolds, tissue engineering, perforator flaps, and noninvasive imaging). 20 As new techniques and technologies come to the fore, we are confident that the FRTM will remain the right forum for open discussion and determining their potential roles in facial reconstruction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 The same survey listed the ten most important plastic surgery innovations of the modern era, and six of these are closely related to facial reconstruction and are also a large part of the FRTM curriculum (face transplantation, fat grafting, biologic scaffolds, tissue engineering, perforator flaps, and noninvasive imaging). 20 As new techniques and technologies come to the fore, we are confident that the FRTM will remain the right forum for open discussion and determining their potential roles in facial reconstruction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Ever-Evolving State of the Art: A Look Back at the AONA Facial Reconstruction and Transplantation Meetings

Diaz-Siso

Plana

Manson

et al. 2016

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, periodic academic meetings held by surgical societies have set the stage for discussion and exchange of ideas, which in turn have led to advancement of clinical practices. Since 2007, the AONA State of the Art: Facial Reconstruction and Transplantation Meeting (FRTM) has been organized to provide a forum for specialists around the world to engage in open conversation about the approaches currently at the forefront of facial reconstruction. Review of registration data of FRTM iterations from 2007 to 2015 was performed. The total number of participants, along with their level of medical training, location of practice, and medical specialty, was recorded. Additionally, academic programs and 2015 participant feedback were evaluated. From 2007 to 2011, there was a decrease in the overall number of participants, with a slight increase in the number of clinical specialties present. In 2013, a sharp increase in total participants, international attendance, and represented clinical specialties was observed. This trend continued in 2015. Adjustments to academic programs have included reorganization of lectures and optimization of content. FRTM is a unique forum for multidisciplinary professionals to discuss the evolving field of facial reconstruction and join forces to accelerate progress and improve patient care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ever-Evolving State of the Art: A Look Back at the AONA Facial Reconstruction and Transplantation Meetings

Diaz-Siso

Plana

Manson

et al. 2016

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From these sources, all current or previous NIH grants, including the funding amount, years funded, and type of NIH award were collected. As has been described previously in detail, 15 the NIH awards were categorized into 3 broad categories (1) NIH P01/R01/U01 awards, (2) nonmajor funding (eg, F32, K08, R00, R21, R43), and (3) no history of current/former NIH funding.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Plastic Surgery Programs with Integrated Residencies or Subspecialty Fellowships Have Increased Academic Productivity?

Duquette

Valsangkar

Sood

et al. 2016

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surgical training pathways on the academic performance of plastic surgical divisions.Methods:Eighty-two academic parameters for 338 plastic surgeons (PS), 1737 general surgeons (GS), and 1689 specialist surgeons (SS) from the top 55 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded academic departments of surgery were examined using data gathered from websites, SCOPUS, and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools.Results:The median size of a PS division was 7 faculty members. PS faculty had lower median publications (P)/citations (C) (ie, P/C) than GS and SS (PS: 25/328, GS: 35/607, and SS: 40/713, P < 0.05). Publication and citation differences were observed at all ranks: assistant professor (PS: 11/101, GS: 13/169, and SS: 19/249), associate professor (PS: 33/342, GS: 40/691, and SS: 44/780), and professor (PS: 57/968, GS: 97/2451, and SS: 101/2376). PS had a lower percentage of faculty with current/former NIH funding (PS: 13.5%, GS: 22.8%, and SS: 25.1%, P < 0.05). Academic productivity for PS faculty was improved in integrated programs. P/C for PS faculty from divisions with traditional 3-year fellowships was 19/153, integrated 6-year residency was 25/329, and both traditional and 6-year programs were 27/344, P < 0.05. Craniofacial and hand fellowships increased productivity within the integrated residency programs. P/C for programs with a craniofacial fellowship were 32/364 and for those that additionally had a hand fellowship were 45/536. PS faculty at divisions with integrated training programs also had a higher frequency of NIH funding.Conclusions:PS divisions vary in degree of academic productivity. Dramatically improved scholarly output is observed with integrated residency training programs and advanced specialty fellowships.

show abstract

“…Innovation can be defined as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs or existing market needs. This is accomplished through more effective products, processes, services, technologies or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments and society. As stated by Peter Drucker, the founder of modern management theory, ‘knowledge has to be improved, challenged and increased constantly or it vanishes’ .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of surgical innovation on tissue repair in the surgical patient

Tevlin

Atashroo

Duscher

et al. 2015

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Throughout history, surgeons have been prolific innovators, which is hardly surprising as most surgeons innovate daily, tailoring their intervention to the intrinsic uniqueness of each operation, each patient and each disease. Innovation can be defined as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs or existing market needs. In the past two decades, surgical innovation has significantly improved patient outcomes, complication rates and length of hospital stay. There is one key area that has great potential to change the face of surgical practice and which is still in its infancy: the realm of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering.

show abstract

The ACAPS and SESPRS Surveys to Identify the Most Influential Innovators and Innovations in Plastic Surgery

Cited by 17 publications

References 29 publications

The Ever-Evolving State of the Art: A Look Back at the AONA Facial Reconstruction and Transplantation Meetings

The Ever-Evolving State of the Art: A Look Back at the AONA Facial Reconstruction and Transplantation Meetings

Do Plastic Surgery Programs with Integrated Residencies or Subspecialty Fellowships Have Increased Academic Productivity?

Impact of surgical innovation on tissue repair in the surgical patient

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About