Khetpal Sumun, Reátegui Alvaro, Lopez Joseph, Sacks Justin M, Prsic Adnan
Division of Plastic Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Apr 28;9(4):e3557. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003557. eCollection 2021 Apr.
Plastic and reconstructive surgery has a well-recognized history of disruption and innovation. It remains unclear, however, how the specialty's priority on innovation materializes into commercialization or bench to bedside led by plastic surgeons.
Our analysis utilized Pitchbook (Seattle, Wash.), a market database of companies and investors, for ventures that have designed innovations related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Companies were categorized into 5 focus areas: provider (outpatient surgical or hospital entity), aesthetics (cosmetics/injectables), devices (instrumentation, lasers, implants), regenerative medicine (tissue engineering/wound healing), and software (digital solutions). Company websites, LinkedIn (Sunnyvale, Calif.) profiles, and Crunchbase (San Francisco, Calif.) were reviewed to determine the leadership roles of plastic surgeons.
Plastic surgeons primarily serve as advisors, as opposed to founders or chief executive officers (CEOs). Our analysis additionally found that provider and software solutions had a greater degree of plastic surgeon-led leadership, whereas regenerative medicine and device innovation remains less frequented. There was a relatively balanced representation of academic and private plastic surgeons in entrepreneurial pursuits.
Plastic surgeons typically serve as board advisors, as opposed to founders and CEOs. Reasons for disengagement from leadership roles may include satisfaction with clinical work, time constraint, lack of business knowledge, financial constraint, and opportunity cost associated with starting a venture. To promote participation in innovation, future studies should explore tangible ways to engage in such opportunities. In doing so, plastic surgeons can own the "organ" of innovation, and continue to contribute to the legacy and the advancement of the specialty.
整形与重建外科有着公认的中断与创新历史。然而,该专业对创新的重视如何转化为商业化或由整形外科医生主导的从实验室到临床的转化,仍不明确。
我们的分析利用了Pitchbook(华盛顿州西雅图),一个公司和投资者的市场数据库,用于那些设计了与整形与重建外科相关创新的企业。公司被分为5个重点领域:提供者(门诊手术或医院实体)、美学(化妆品/注射剂)、设备(仪器、激光、植入物)、再生医学(组织工程/伤口愈合)和软件(数字解决方案)。审查了公司网站、领英(加利福尼亚州森尼韦尔)个人资料和Crunchbase(加利福尼亚州旧金山),以确定整形外科医生的领导角色。
整形外科医生主要担任顾问,而非创始人或首席执行官(CEO)。我们的分析还发现,提供者和软件解决方案有更高程度的由整形外科医生主导的领导力,而再生医学和设备创新的参与度仍然较低。在创业活动中,学术型和私立整形外科医生的代表相对均衡。
整形外科医生通常担任董事会顾问,而非创始人及CEO。脱离领导角色的原因可能包括对临床工作的满意度、时间限制、缺乏商业知识、资金限制以及创业相关的机会成本。为促进对创新的参与,未来研究应探索切实可行的参与此类机会的方式。通过这样做,整形外科医生可以掌控创新的“器官”,并继续为该专业的传承和发展做出贡献。