ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
Resident-Run Clinic for Nonsurgical Injectable Facial Aesthetics: A 5-Year Institutional Experience.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Resident-run clinics (RRCs) have become an important component of plastic surgery training. This study evaluates outcomes from a longitudinal RRC focused on neuromodulator and soft tissue filler injections over a 5-year period. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes, patient retention, resident experience by postgraduate year (PGY) level, and the safety of RRCs as a training model. Methods: A retrospective review of patients seen in our institution's RRC from January 2020 to September 2024 was performed. Variables included demographics, injectable type and anatomic location, revision rate (overall and by PGY), complication rate, patient retention, and surgical conversion. Results: A total of 380 patients (92.1% female, mean age 41) accounted for 1168 encounters (mean 3.3 visits/patient). Thirty-seven residents participated during the study period. Neuromodulator, filler, and combined treatments comprised 55.3%, 20.9%, and 23.7% of encounters, respectively. Corrugators (91%) and lips (74%) were the most common neuromodulator and filler sites. The overall complication rate was 0.17% (infection and eyebrow ptosis), and the revision rate was 5.2%, most commonly because of perceived ineffectiveness (58.7%) or asymmetry (38.1%). Revision rates decreased with advancing PGY (PGY-1: 9.0% vs PGY-6: 3.0%). Sixty-five percent of patients returned for at least 1 subsequent visit, and 5.5% later scheduled surgery with a resident or attending. Conclusions: Nonsurgical RRCs provide a safe, effective training environment for progressive autonomy in aesthetic injectables while maintaining low complication and revision rates comparable to other practice settings. Level of Evidence 4 Risk: For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
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.