Dataset Information

Effects of COVID-19 on Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship Training and Director Practices

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objectives of this study include characterizing the practice patterns and testing strategies of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS) fellowship directors (FDs) secondary to COVID-19 and to quantify the impact of COVID-19 on FPRS fellowship training.

Study Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Online.

Methods

A survey was sent to all American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery FDs and co-FDs in September 2020. Descriptive analyses were performed.

Results

Of 77 eligible FDs, 45 responded (58.4%) representing a diverse group across the United States. All but 1 FD routinely screened patients for COVID-19 in the preoperative setting. FDs largely believed that universal preoperative testing was cost-effective (66.7%), improved patient safety (80.0%) and health care worker safety (95.6%), and was not burdensome for patients (53.3%). With regard to volume of cosmetic/aesthetic, reconstructive, facial nerve, and trauma surgery, FDs indicated largely no change in volume (34.9%, 71.0%, 68.4%, and 80.0%, respectively) or fellow experience (67.4%, 80.6%, 84.2%, and 80.0%). Half (50.0%) of the FDs reported decreased volume of congenital/craniofacial surgery, but 75.0% did not believe that there was a change in fellow experience. Overall, of the 15 responses indicating “worsened training” across all domains of FPRS, 14 were located in the Northeast (93.33%).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has had the least impact on the volume of reconstructive procedures, facial nerve operations, and trauma surgery and a negative impact on congenital/craniofacial surgery volume, and it has accelerated the demand for cosmetic/aesthetic operations. Overall, the majority of FDs did not feel as though their fellows’ trainings would be adversely affected by the ongoing pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Salehi P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127772 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges for oculoplastic surgeons worldwide, in terms of care delivery, medical equipment and at-risk patient management. To date, there are no centralized or compiled international COVID-19 guidelines for oculoplastic surgeons.MethodsWe examined COVID-19 guidelines published by oculoplastic societies worldwide. All countries around the world were initially considered in this study, but only 9 oculoplastic societies met the inclusion criteria: (1) publicly available guidelines displayed on the oculoplastic society's website, or (2) guidelines received from the oculoplastic society after contacting them twice using the contact information on their website.ResultsThe 9 oculoplastic societies examined include: the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the British Oculoplastic Surgery Society, the Canadian Society of Oculoplastic Surgery, the European Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Plástica Ocular y Orbitaria, la Asociación Colombiana de Cirugía Plastica Ocular, the Asia Pacific Society of Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, the Oculoplastics Association of India, and the Philippine Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. They all agree that urgent procedures should not be delayed, while non-necessary procedures (including all elective clinic services) should be postponed. When adequate protective equipment is available, oculoplastic surgeons must treat urgent cases. Eight out of 9 societies have provided recommendations on personal protective equipment use in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to adequately protect mucous membranes. Other recommendations provided by certain societies are related to shelter in place measures, hand hygiene and surface disinfection protocols, patient triage, and thyroid eye disease management.ConclusionsAll 9 societies with published recommendations have provided valuable recommendations to their members, regarding urgency of care and infection control solutions (personal protective equipment, hand hygiene, telemedicine, and social isolation).

Project description:Importance:Best practices for antibiotic use after facial plastic and reconstructive procedures have been the subject of much debate, and there is a need for large-scale data to guide further development of evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic use in this setting. Objective:To assess patterns of postoperative antibiotic prescriptions and infection rates after nasal and oculoplastic procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental research databases of 294?039 patients who underwent facial plastic surgery procedures between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years, lacked continuous insurance coverage for 1 year before and after the procedure, or underwent additional procedures on the surgery date of interest. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcomes were antibiotic prescription patterns in the immediate postoperative period and rates of postoperative infectious complications. Explanatory variables included patient demographics, procedure type, and relevant comorbidities, which were used in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results:Of the 294?039 patients who met inclusion criteria (55.9% women and 44.1% men; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [18.6 years]), 45.2% filled prescriptions for postoperative antibiotics, including 55.3% of patients undergoing nasal procedures and 14.7% of patients undergoing oculoplastic procedures. Superficial surgical site infections occurred in 1.6% of patients, while deep surgical site infections occurred in 0.3% of patients. On multivariable logistic regression, patients receiving postoperative antibiotics were at significantly decreased risk of postoperative infections (nasal procedures: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.144 [95% CI, 0.102-0.203]; oculoplastic procedures: aOR, 0.254 [95% CI, 0.104-0.622]) compared with those who did not receive postoperative antibiotics. Increased duration of postoperative antibiotics was not associated with reduced rates of infectious complications (nasal procedures: aOR, 1.000 [95% CI, 0.978-1.022]; oculoplastic procedures: aOR, 1.024 [95% CI, 0.959-01.092]). Despite being more likely to experience postoperative infections, patients with a history of tobacco use (aOR, 0.806 [95% CI, 0.747-0.870]), immunodeficiency (aOR, 0.774 [95% CI, 0.737-0.813]), or type 1 or 2 diabetes (aOR, 0.810 [95% CI, 0.772-0.850]) were less likely to be prescribed antibiotics than those without these conditions. Conclusions and Relevance:Postoperative antibiotic prescriptions were associated with reduced rates of infections after facial plastic surgery. This study highlights the role of population-level data in the development of best practices for postoperative antibiotic use and identifies the need for additional examination of antibiotic use patterns and recommendations for populations at increased risk for postoperative wound infection.