ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Enhancing Aesthetic Breast Surgery Training: A 10-Year Comparison of Outcomes Between Resident- and Attending-Led Cosmetic Breast Procedures at a Single Institution.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe resident aesthetic clinic is a practice in which plastic surgery residents oversee patient care, thereby gaining autonomy and hands-on experience in cosmetic surgery.
objectiveThis study evaluates outcomes of resident-led cosmetic breast surgeries in a resident aesthetic clinic compared to attending-led procedures.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent cosmetic breast surgery at a single institution's resident clinic from 2012 to 2021. Resident-led cases were matched with attending-led cases, and comparisons in demographic information, procedure type, operation details, follow-up, re-operations, and complications were performed.
resultsAmong 134 female patients at a resident aesthetic clinic, 27 (20.1%) underwent breast augmentation, 7 (5.2%) had mastopexy, and 12 (9.0%) received augmentation mastopexy, with a matched control group of attending-led cases. Residents favored silicone implants and inframammary incisions, while the attending preferred saline implants and peri-areolar incisions (p < 0.001). For breast augmentation, complication rates for breast augmentation were similar between residents and attendings (18.5% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.704), with identical re-operation rates (11.1%; p = 1.000). In mastopexy, residents had no complications, while attendings had a 25% complication rate (p = 0.467). In augmentation mastopexy, complication rates were 25.0% for residents and 33.3% for attendings (p = 0.500), with lower re-operation rates in residents (0.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.238).
conclusionResident-led cosmetic breast procedures demonstrate comparable safety outcomes to attending-led surgeries, supporting the efficacy of resident training in aesthetic surgery and highlighting the importance of resident-led clinics in surgical education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41572019What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.