Anthony J. Taglienti

Analysis of Cosmetic Topics on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Exam

BACKGROUND The Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Exam (PSITE) is a multiple-choice examination taken by plastic surgery trainees to provide an assessment of plastic surgery knowledge. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate cosmetic questions and determine overlap with national procedural data. METHODS Digital syllabi of six consecutive PSITE administrations (2008-2013) were analyzed for cosmetic surgery topics. Questions were classified by taxonomy, focus, anatomy, and procedure. Answer references were tabulated by source. Relationships between tested material and national procedural volume were assessed via Pearson correlation. RESULTS 301 questions addressed cosmetic topics (26% of all questions) and 20 required image interpretations (7%). Question-stem taxonomy favored decision-making (40%) and recall (37%) skills over interpretation (23%, P < .001). Answers focused on treatments/outcomes (67%) over pathology/anatomy (20%) and diagnoses (13%, P < .001). Tested procedures were largely surgical (85%) and focused on the breast (25%), body (18%), nose (13%), and eye (10%). The most common surgeries were breast augmentation (12%), rhinoplasty (11%), blepharoplasty (10%), and body contouring (6%). Minimally invasive procedures were lasers (5%), neuromodulators (4%), and fillers (3%). Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (58%), Clinics in Plastic Surgery (7%), and Aesthetic Surgery Journal (6%) were the most cited journals, with a median 5-year publication lag. There was poor correlation between PSITE content and procedural volume data (r(2) = 0.138, P = .539). CONCLUSIONS Plastic surgeons receive routine evaluation of cosmetic surgery knowledge. These data may help optimize clinical and didactic experiences for training in cosmetic surgery.

Current Applications of Facial Volumization with Fillers.

Learning Objectives: After reading this article and watching the accompanying videos, the participant should be able to: 1. Assess patients seeking facial volumization and correlate volume deficiencies anatomically. 2. Identify appropriate fillers based on rheologic properties and anatomical needs. 3. Recognize poor candidates for facial volumization. 4. Recognize and treat filler-related side effects and complications. Summary: Facial volumization is widely applied for minimally invasive facial rejuvenation both as a solitary means and in conjunction with surgical correction. Appropriate facial volumization is dependent on patient characteristics, consistent longitudinal anatomical changes, and qualities of fillers available. In this article, anatomical changes seen with aging are illustrated, appropriate techniques for facial volumization are described in the setting of correct filler selection, and potential complications are addressed.

A Quantitative Analysis of Onabotulinumtoxina, Abobotulinumtoxina, and Incobotulinumtoxina: A Randomized, Double-blind, Prospective Clinical Trial of Comparative Dynamic Strain Reduction

Background: U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved formulations of botulinum toxin include onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.), abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport; Galderma Pharma S.A., Lausanne, Switzerland), and incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin; Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany). This study uses digital image correlation to compare dynamic strain reduction between available neurotoxins. Methods: Seventy-three treatment-naive female patients aged were randomized to injection with onabotulinumtoxinA (20 units), abobotulinumtoxinA (60 units), or incobotulinumtoxinA (20 units) in the glabella. Imaging was conducted at 4, 14, and 90 days after injection. Change in average dynamic strain of the glabella was compared using ANOVA. Results: At day 4, there was a 42.1 percent strain reduction in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, a 39.4 percent strain reduction in the abobotulinumtoxinA group, and a 19.8 percent strain reduction in the incobotulinumtoxinA group (onabotulinumtoxinA versus abobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.77; onabotulinumtoxinA versus incobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.02; and abobotulinumtoxinA versus incobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.04). At day 14, there was a 66.1 percent strain reduction in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, a 51.4 percent strain reduction in the abobotulinumtoxinA group, and a 42.8 percent strain reduction in the incobotulinumtoxinA group (onabotulinumtoxinA versus abobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.14; onabotulinumtoxinA versus incobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.02; and abobotulinumtoxinA versus incobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.36). At day 90, there was a 43.5 percent strain reduction in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, a 38.4 percent strain reduction in the abobotulinumtoxinA group, and a 25.3 percent strain reduction in the incobotulinumtoxinA group (onabotulinumtoxinA versus abobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.66; onabotulinumtoxinA versus incobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.12; and abobotulinumtoxinA versus incobotulinumtoxinA, p = 0.24). Conclusions: Using digital image correlation, the tested neuromodulators do not have equivalent strain reduction in the glabella at the doses used. These results confirm assertions of noninterchangeability. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Abstract P15: Low Levels of Evidence for Clinical Management Questions on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Exam

PURPOSE: The In-Service Exam for Plastic Surgeons (IEPS) is written by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Examinees reasonably infer that tested material reflects the Society’s vision for the core curriculum of plastic surgery knowledge to be mastered during residency. The purpose of this study was to examine the levels of evidence (LOE) on which credited answers to IEPS clinical management questions are based.