CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24(03): e278-e281
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700584
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Importance of Facial Plastic Surgery Education in Residency: A Resident Survey

1   Department of Otolaryngology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, United States
J. Randall Jordan
1   Department of Otolaryngology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding There was no funding used to conduct this research.
Further Information

Publication History

14 April 2019

17 September 2019

Publication Date:
13 December 2019 (online)


Introduction Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS) is a key part of the curriculum for otolaryngology residents. It is important to gain an understanding of the breadth of exposure and level of competence residents feel with these concepts during their residency.

Objective To determine the level of FPRS exposure and training otolaryngology residents receive during their residency.

Methods A survey was emailed to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited otolaryngology residents. The survey aimed to find the level of exposure to FPRS procedures otolaryngology residents get and how confident they feel with their training in cosmetic FPRS.

Results A total of 213 residents responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 13.4%. There was an even mixture of residents from all postgraduate year (PGY) levels, with 58% of respondents being male. Almost all (98%) of the residents felt FPRS was important to otolaryngology residency training. Exposure to procedures varied with 57% performing or assisting with cosmetic minor procedures, 81% performing or assisting with cosmetic major procedures, and 93% performing or assisting with reconstructive procedures. Only 49% of residents felt their programs either very or somewhat adequately prepared them in cosmetic facial plastic surgery.

Conclusion There was a wide variability in the FPRS procedure exposure. Most residents felt procedures were a vital part of otolaryngology residency training, but not all were able to participate in them. Only half of the residents felt well-prepared in cosmetic procedures.


The research for this manuscript was conducted at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi.



  • References

  • 1 Barr JS, Sinno S, Cimino M, Saadeh PB. Clinicians performing cosmetic surgery in the community: a nationwide analysis of physician certification. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (01) 92e-98e
  • 2 Burns P, Miller I, Timon C, Walsh M. Otorhinolaryngologists' interest in facial plastic surgery: a survey in the United Kingdom and Ireland. J Laryngol Otol 2008; 122 (03) 299-302
  • 3 Adamson PA, Rubin AM. The otolaryngologist's attitude to facial plastic surgery. J Otolaryngol 1986; 15 (03) 196-200
  • 4 van Pinxteren SAT, Lohuis PJFM, Ingels KJAO, Nolst Trenité GJ. Interest in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery among otorhinolaryngologists: a survey in The Netherlands. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005; 7 (02) 138-142
  • 5 Miller RH. Otolaryngology residency and fellowship training. The resident's perspective. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994; 120 (10) 1057-1061
  • 6 Thomas JR, Graboyes JH. A specific curriculum in facial plastic surgery. Effect on residency training. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 112 (01) 70-72
  • 7 Thomas JR, Ehlert TK, Fenwick J. Facial plastic surgery in the otolaryngology training program: an update. Am J Otolaryngol 1990; 11 (03) 188-190
  • 8 Rhee JS. The JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery Clinical Education Blueprint. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (03) 167-168
  • 9 Hu A, Sardesai MG, Merati AL, Fung K. Trainee perceptions of laryngology in otolaryngology residency programs. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 41 (06) 419-425