Kamali Parisa, van Paridon Maaike W, Ibrahim Ahmed M S, Paul Marek A, Winters Henri A, Martinot-Duquennoy Veronique, Noah Ernst Magnus, Pallua Norbert, Lin Samuel J
Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, La.; Division of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Division of Plastic Surgery, Centre hospitalier régional universitaire de Lille, Lille, France; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Kassel, Germany; and Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand Surgery and Burn Center, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Mar 17;4(3):e641. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627. eCollection 2016 Mar.
Major differences exist in residency training, and the structure and quality of residency programs differ between different countries and teaching centers. It is of vital importance that a better understanding of the similarities and differences in plastic surgery training be ascertained as a means of initiating constructive discussion and commentary among training programs worldwide. In this study, the authors provide an overview of plastic surgery training in the United States and Europe.
A survey was sent to select surgeons in 10 European countries that were deemed to be regular contributors to the plastic surgery literature. The questions focused on pathway to plastic surgery residency, length of training, required pretraining experience, training scheme, research opportunities, and examinations during and after plastic surgery residency.
Plastic surgery residency training programs in the United States differ from the various (selected) countries in Europe and are described in detail.
Plastic surgery education is vastly different between the United States and Europe, and even within Europe, training programs remain heterogeneous. Standardization of curricula across the different countries would improve the interaction of different centers and facilitate the exchange of vital information for quality control and future improvements. The unique characteristics of the various training programs potentially provide a basis from which to learn and to gain from one another.
住院医师培训存在重大差异，不同国家和教学中心的住院医师培训项目结构及质量各不相同。至关重要的是，要更好地了解整形外科学培训中的异同，以此作为在全球范围内的培训项目间展开建设性讨论和评论的一种方式。在本研究中，作者概述了美国和欧洲的整形外科学培训情况。
向欧洲10个国家选定的外科医生发送了一份调查问卷，这些国家被认为是整形外科学文献的常规贡献者。问题集中在整形外科学住院医师培训途径、培训时长、所需的培训前经验、培训方案、研究机会以及整形外科学住院医师培训期间及之后的考试。
详细描述了美国的整形外科学住院医师培训项目与欧洲不同（选定）国家的差异。
美国和欧洲的整形外科学教育差异巨大，甚至在欧洲内部，培训项目也依然参差不齐。不同国家课程的标准化将改善不同中心之间的互动，并促进为质量控制和未来改进而进行的重要信息交流。各种培训项目的独特特点可能为相互学习和借鉴提供基础。
