Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2016.43.2.145
Fifty Years of Innovation in Plastic Surgery
Background Innovation has molded the current landscape of plastic surgery. However, documentation of this process only exists scattered throughout the literature as individual articles. The few attempts made to profile innovation in plastic surgery have been narrative, and therefore qualitative and inherently biased. Through the implementation of a novel innovation metric, this work aims to identify and characterise the most prevalent innovations in plastic surgery over the last 50 years.
Methods Patents and publications related to plastic surgery (1960 to 2010) were retrieved from patent and MEDLINE databases, respectively. The most active patent codes were identified and grouped into technology areas, which were subsequently plotted graphically against publication data. Expert-derived technologies outside of the top performing patents areas were additionally explored.
Results Between 1960 and 2010, 4,651 patents and 43,118 publications related to plastic surgery were identified. The most active patent codes were grouped under reconstructive prostheses, implants, instruments, non-invasive techniques, and tissue engineering. Of these areas and other expert-derived technologies, those currently undergoing growth include surgical instruments, implants, non-invasive practices, transplantation and breast surgery. Innovations related to microvascular surgery, liposuction, tissue engineering, lasers and prostheses have all plateaued.
Conclusions The application of a novel metric for evaluating innovation quantitatively outlines the natural history of technologies fundamental to the evolution of plastic surgery. Analysis of current innovation trends provides some insight into which technology domains are the most active.
Publication History
Received: 25 August 2015
Accepted: 27 January 2016
Article published online:
20 April 2022
© 2016. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Gillies H, Millard DR. Principles and art of plastic surgery. Boston: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1966
- 2 Mayhew E. The reconstruction of warriors: Archibald McIndoe, The Royal Air Force and the Guinea Pig Club. London: Greenhill Books; 2006
- 3 Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 1962
- 4 Ryan B, Gross NC. The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociol 1943; 8: 15-24
- 5 Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand J Econ 1990; 21: 172-187
- 6 Longaker MT, Rohrich RJ. Innovation: a sustainable competitive advantage for plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115: 2135-2136
- 7 Gurtner GC, Rohrich RJ, Longaker MT. From bedside to bench and back again: technology innovation in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1355-1356
- 8 Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ. et al. Quantifying innovation in surgery. Ann Surg 2014; 260: 205-211
- 9 Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Kwasnicki RM. et al. Technological innovation in neurosurgery: a quantitative study. J Neurosurg 2015; 123: 174-181
- 10 Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Pratt PJ. et al. Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in minimally invasive surgery. Br J Surg 2015; 102: e151-e157
- 11 Bengisu M, Nekhili R. Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid of science and technology databases. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2006; 73: 835-844
- 12 Shores JT, Imbriglia JE, Lee WP. The current state of hand transplantation. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36: 1862-1867
- 13 Mayor S. UK surgical team reports encouraging early results of first hand transplantation. BMJ 2013; 346: f79
- 14 Schneeberger S, Gorantla VS, Brandacher G. et al. Upper-extremity transplantation using a cell-based protocol to minimize immunosuppression. Ann Surg 2013; 257: 345-351
- 15 Leonard DA, Cetrulo Jr CL, McGrouther DA. et al. Induction of tolerance of vascularized composite allografts. Transplantation 2013; 95: 403-409
- 16 Gorantla VS, Brandacher G, Schneeberger S. et al. Favoring the risk-benefit balance for upper extremity transplantation: the Pittsburgh Protocol. Hand Clin 2011; 27: 511-520
- 17 Tamai S. History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: e282-e294
- 18 Suarez EL, Jacobson 2nd JH. Results of small artery endarterectomy-microsurgical technique. Surg Forum 1961; 12: 256-257
- 19 Malt RA, McKhann C. Replantation of severed arms. JAMA 1964; 189: 716-722
- 20 Hassanein AH, Mailey BA, Dobke MK. Robot-assisted plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg 2012; 39: 419-424
- 21 Sheena Y, Jennison T, Hardwicke JT. et al. Detection of perforators using thermal imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 1603-1610
- 22 Gateno J, Teichgraeber JF, Xia JJ. Three-dimensional surgical planning for maxillary and midface distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2003; 14: 833-839