Associations between national financial trends and facial plastic surgery procedural volume
- PMID: 31603542
- DOI: 10.1002/lary.28311
Associations between national financial trends and facial plastic surgery procedural volume
Abstract
Objective(s): To characterize procedural trends in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures in relation to the United States economy.
Methods: Retrospective cohort study examining annual procedure rates were determined from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics from January 1 2007 to December 30, 2017. Procedures were compared to economic activity of the United States as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) were compared using Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit testing and piecewise multivariate regression modeling.
Results: Annual trends in procedural rates showed an overall decrease in the rates of rhinoplasty (284,960 to 218,924), blepharoplasty (240,660 to 209,571), and otoplasty (28,571 to 23,433) from 2007 to 2017. Total cosmetic surgery remained fairly stable, while minimally invasive cosmetic surgery increased in frequency over the study period. On piecewise regression analysis, rhinoplasty (P = .02), rhytidectomy (P = .007), invasive cosmetic surgery (P < .001) were significantly associated with GDP, whereas otoplasty (P = .98) and reconstructive surgery (P = .11) were not associated with GDP.
Conclusion: Cosmetic plastic surgery procedures show a greater correlation to GDP than reconstructive procedures. Trends in plastic surgery cases over the last decade show a decreasing number of rhinoplasty, otoplasty, and blepharoplasty, with stabilization in the last few years. An increasing number of reconstructive cases are found.
Level of evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:632-636, 2020.
Keywords: Plastic surgery; economic variation; gross domestic product; procedural trends.
© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
- Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: Consider all the consequences. Implement Sci 2016;11:114.
-
- Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: Online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
-
- Bakker C, van der Linden S. Health related utility measurement: an introduction. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1197-1199.
-
- Remenschneider AK, Scangas G, Meier JC, et al. EQ-5D-derived health utility values in patients undergoing surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1056-1061.
-
- Gadkaree SK, Fuller JC, Justicz NS, et al. Health utility values as an outcome measure in patients undergoing functional septorhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2019.0234
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
