Back to 2025 Resident Posters
Assessing Aesthetic Training In Plastic Surgery Residency: Are We Rising To The Challenge?
Margaret M. Hornick, MD, Malia Voytik, MD, Salman Khan, BS, Ayaka Deguchi, MD, Carrie Z. Morales, MD, Elizabeth L. Malphrus, MD, MPP, Robyn B. Broach, PhD, Said C. Azoury, MD.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
PURPOSE: Aesthetic surgery is essential in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) training. As the demand for aesthetic surgery rapidly rises in the U.S. and globally, the number of trained PRS providers remains relatively fixed. This study investigates the preparedness of PRS residents to address this demand by evaluating the aesthetic surgery training structure of PRS residency programs.
METHODS: Data from all ACGME accredited independent and integrated plastic surgery program websites were collected, including percentage of graduates entering aesthetic surgery (2019-2023), presence of faculty with stated clinical interest in aesthetic surgery, and existence of a resident cosmetic/aesthetic clinic.
RESULTS: Of 98 PRS residency programs (87 integrated/combined, 11 independent), 30 (30.6%) had resident cosmetic clinics, and 25 (25.5%) had aesthetic-focused faculty. Among 600 graduates, 283 (47.1%) pursued aesthetic surgery fellowship training and/or private aesthetic practice. No significant difference in graduates pursuing aesthetics was found with the presence of a resident clinic (p=0.293) or aesthetic faculty (p=0.735). Independent program graduates were more likely to pursue aesthetics than integrated/combined programs (0.75 v 0.45, p=0.003).
CONCLUSION: Nearly half of PRS graduates over the past five years pursued careers in aesthetic surgery, despite limited dedicated resources within programs. Structured support in aesthetic training could help meet growing industry demands and increase PRS graduates’ preparedness and competitiveness entering this competitive field.
Back to 2025 Resident Posters
