A Comparison of Case Volume in Craniofacial Surgery by Plastic Surgery Residency Training Model.

[BACKGROUND] Plastic surgeons in the United States are trained under 2 residency training models: integrated and independent. This study analyzes the variability of craniofacial surgery cases performed both between and within training models.

[METHODS] Case volume data from national data reports of 5 plastic surgery resident cohorts were analyzed (2011-2015). Craniofacial surgery case volumes across 4 major categories and 23 subcategories were compared between training models via t tests. Differences in intramodel variability were compared with F tests. Fold differences were calculated between mean case volumes and minimum requirements in craniofacial surgery.

[RESULTS] A total of 526 independent/combined (64%) and 292 integrated (36%) plastic surgery residents were included. Integrated residents reported more cases classified as congenital defect (118.8 ± 49.3 vs 110.3 ± 42.9, P = 0.013), neoplasm (202.0 ± 79.7 vs 163.2 ± 60.8, P < 0.001), and trauma (149.0 ± 61.8 vs 127.0 ± 52.0, P < 0.001), but not aesthetic (122.3 ± 68.6 vs 116.5 ± 50.5, P = 0.201). Integrated residents reported more case volume in 12 case subcategories, whereas independent/combined residents reported more cases in 3 case subcategories. Integrated residents had greater intramodel variability in 12 case subcategories, whereas independent/combined residents had greater intramodel variability in 2 case subcategories. Fold differences between mean case volumes and minimum requirements ranged from 1.8 times to 6.0 times.

[CONCLUSIONS] Integrated residents tended to report significantly more craniofacial surgery cases and exhibit greater intrapathway variability. More research is needed to understand the impact of disparate case volume on core competency training in craniofacial surgery during plastic surgery residency.