Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026
Resident-Run Clinic for Nonsurgical Injectable Facial Aesthetics: A 5-Year Institutional Experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Somers Sydney, Scott Kaylee B, Patel Ashraf, Hart Chase, Vitale Alexandra, Waller McKenna, Clarke Rachelle, Dadzie Aaron, Eddington Devin, Agarwal Cori, Crombie Courtney
Аннотация
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.
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.