ReviewJPRAS open2026
Navigating family planning and career development in plastic surgery.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women in plastic surgery training face distinctive challenges in aligning reproductive health and family planning with the rigors of a demanding surgical career. With long training durations, competitive program cultures, and late entry into practice, childbearing during residency is often delayed or deprioritized. At the same time, plastic surgery has made measurable advances in gender representation, institutional policy, and cultural acceptance of pregnancy during training. No doubt, the progress that has already occurred over the must be explicitly recognized alongside ongoing gaps. To characterize these pressures, we conducted a narrative review of PubMed/MEDLINE and professional society resources (2000-2025) as well as a systematic PubMed search (2015-2025) that identified 11 quantitative studies specific to plastic surgery residents. Key domains included pregnancy timing, parental leave, fertility, disclosure, lactation, mentorship, and work-life balance. Across studies, many trainees reported postponing pregnancy and receiving minimal fertility counseling. Roughly 40% were dissatisfied with existing leave policies, and 20% delayed childbearing due to training demands. Small program sizes and intense competitiveness may heighten stigma around pregnancy, while insufficient institutional support, limited childcare, inadequate lactation facilities, and rigid scheduling amplify stress. Obstetric complications appear more common among surgical trainees compared to non-surgical peers. Although the American Board of Plastic Surgery allows up to 12 weeks of leave during residency, this is often insufficient to accommodate combined parental, medical, and family emergency needs. Importantly, recent literature also reflects increased program-level awareness and improving norms around parenthood, with growing attention to formal leave policies, lactation support, and trainee wellness. Addressing these systemic, cultural, and biological barriers requires multi-level action: reforming institutional policies, expanding support resources, fostering mentorship, and normalizing parenthood in training culture. This manuscript aims to support continued progress by pairing transparent discussion of persistent challenges with practical recommendations and examples of evolving best practices, with the goal of strengthening and not discouraging, future trainees' interest in plastic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.