Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:A validated measure assessing sexual sensory functions of the breast is needed to optimize sexual and other health outcomes after breast procedures. AIM/OBJECTIVE:To describe the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess breast sensorisexual function (BSF). METHODS:We applied the PROMIS standards (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) for measure development and evaluation of validity. An initial conceptual model of BSF was developed with patients and experts. A literature review yielded a pool of 117 candidate items that underwent cognitive testing and iteration. Forty-eight items were administered to an ethnically diverse, national panel-based sample of sexually active women with breast cancer (n = 350) or without (n = 300). Psychometric analyses were performed. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:The main outcome was BSF, a measure that assesses affective (satisfaction, pleasure, importance, pain, discomfort) and functional (touch, pressure, thermoreception, nipple erection) sensorisexual domains. RESULTS:A bifactor model fit to 6 domains-excluding 2 domains with only 2 items each and 2 pain-related domains-revealed a single general factor representing BSF that may be adequately measured by the average of the items. This factor, with higher values denoting better function and with the standard deviation set to 1, was highest among women without breast cancer (mean, 0.24), intermediate among women with breast cancer but not bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction (-0.01), and lowest among those with bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction (-0.56). Between women with and without breast cancer, the BSF general factor accounted for 40%, 49%, and 100% of the difference in arousal, ability to orgasm, and sexual satisfaction, respectively. Items in each of 8 domains demonstrated unidimensionality (ie, they measured 1 underlying BSF trait) and high Cronbach's alphas for the entire sample (0.77-0.93) and the cancer group (0.71-0.95). Correlations with sexual function, health, and quality of life were positive for the BSF general factor and mostly negative for the pain domains. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The BSF PROM can be used to assess the impact of breast surgery or other procedures on the sexual sensory functions of the breast in women with and without breast cancer. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:The BSF PROM was developed by using evidence-based standards, and it applies to sexually active women with and without breast cancer. Generalizability to sexually inactive women and other women warrants further study. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The BSF PROM is a measure of women's breast sensorisexual function with evidence of validity among women affected and unaffected by breast cancer.

Background: Significant differences exist between feminine and masculine lower extremities, and this region contributes to gender dysphoria in transgender and nonbinary individuals. Methods: A systematic review was conducted for primary literature on lower extremity (LE) gender affirmation techniques as well as anthropometric differences between male and female lower extremities, which could guide surgical planning. Multiple databases were searched for articles before June 2, 2021 using Medical Subject Headings. Data on techniques, outcomes, complications, and anthropometrics were collected. Results: A total of 852 unique articles were identified: 17 met criteria for male and female anthropometrics and 1 met criteria for LE surgical techniques potentially applicable to gender affirmation. None met criteria for LE gender affirmation techniques specifically. Therefore, this review was expanded to discuss surgical techniques for the LE, targeting masculine and feminine anthropometric ideals. LE masculinization can target feminine qualities, such as mid-lateral gluteal fullness and excess subcutaneous fat in the thigh and hips. Feminization can target masculine qualities like a low waist-to-hip ratio, mid-lateral gluteal concavity, calf hypertrophy, and body hair. Cultural differences and patient body habitus, which influence what is considered "˜"˜ideal"™"™ for both sexes, should be discussed. Applicable techniques include hormone therapy, lipo-contouring, fat grafting, implant placement, and botulinum toxin injection, among others. Conclusions: Due to lack of existing outcomes-based literature, gender affirmation of the lower extremities will rely on application of an array of existing plastic surgery techniques. However, quality outcomes data for these procedures is required to determine best practices.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have provided recommendations for increasing female leadership in academic plastic surgery. This study quantifies the extent to which these recommendations have been met in plastic surgery residency programs and identifies remaining institutional barriers to the advancement of women in academic plastic surgery. METHODS:An electronic survey was designed to quantify select recommendations for promoting female leadership in academic plastic surgery. The survey was distributed to either a female faculty member or a male program director at each academic plastic surgery program. An optional phone interview discussing current barriers to women's advancement followed the survey. RESULTS:Forty-nine of 92 survey recipients participated (52.7 percent response rate). Women constituted 25 percent of faculty, 22 percent of program directors, and 20 percent of program leaders of participating programs. Programs on average provided three of 11 resources. Programs with female leaders provided 6.20 resources versus 2.28 resources at departments with male chairs (p = 0.015). Programs with female program directors provided 5.50 resources versus 2.18 resources at programs with male program directors (p = 0.008). Of the 49 survey respondents, nine completed the interview (18.4 percent completion rate). The most frequently identified barriers to aspiring women leaders were opaque promotion criteria (cited by 77.8 percent of interviewees), motherhood bias (77.8 percent), and unequal recruitment practices (55.6 percent). CONCLUSIONS:The presence of a female chair or program director is associated with a greater quantity of resources for promoting female leaders. Remaining barriers to women seeking academic leadership positions include compensation and promotion disparities, motherhood bias, and unequal recruitment practices.