Usurpation of the role of the plastic surgeon as a public health problem in Mexico: Reflections on a case

Introduction

Unlike other professions in Mexico, the training of professionals in health is supervised by the Interinstitutional Commission for the Training of Human Resources in Health (CIFRHS), which is jointly administered by the Secretary of Public Education, the Ministry of Health, and the various universities that endorse the curricula. The fundamentals of medical residency are established in the official Mexican standard 001-SSA3-2012. In Mexico, plastic and reconstructive surgery is a surgical subspecialty. Despite having a regulatory system, in recent years, some institutions have offered postgraduate courses in health sciences (master’s degree, diplomas, or training) without complying with the stipulations of the CIFRHS, as exemplified by graduates of masters or cosmetic surgery programs.

These courses have an average duration of 2 years and comply neither with any regulations nor with any university curricula. When the program ends, they grant a master’s degree in aesthetic surgery that makes students believe that they are fully prepared to perform aesthetic or reconstructive surgical procedures, without actually being plastic surgeons [1].

In 2011, a ranking of the countries with the most plastic surgical procedures was released. Among the 20 countries listed in the ranking, Mexico was the sixth in terms of the most plastic surgical procedures performed. According to the ranking, the most common procedure was abdominoplasty [2]. In expert hands, the complication rate is less than 1% [3]. Since the number of non-certified plastic surgeons has increased, the complication rate has also increased considerably.

Necrosis of the skin flaps accounts for between 2% to 3% cases and is caused by incorrect surgical technique or tobacco consumption. This complication is an aesthetic catastrophe that produces a deformity, prolongs the patient’s hospital stay, increases costs, and predisposes the patient to a higher rate of systemic complications [4].

Publication History

Received: 28 February 2018

Accepted: 30 April 2018

Article published online:
03 April 2022

• References

• 1 Davila Rodriguez AA. Usurpation of professions in plastic surgery, aesthetic and reconstructive. Cir Plast 2014; 24: 123-6
• 2 International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2011 [Internet]. Hanover, NH: 2012. [cited May 22, 2018]. Available from https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ISAPS-Results-Procedures-2011-1.pdf
• 3 Matarasso A, Swift RW, Rankin M. Abdominoplasty and abdominal contour surgery: a national plastic surgery survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 1797-808
• 4 Vidal P, Berner JE, Will PA. Managing complications in abdominoplasty: a literature review. Arch Plast Surg 2017; 44: 457-68
• 5 Ramos-Rocha de Viesca M. Human vulnerability under cosmetic surgery: a bioethic analysis. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2012; 50: 81-96
• 6 Hultman CS, Wagner IJ. Professionalism in plastic surgery: attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors in medical students compared to surgeons in training and practice-one, but not the same. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74 Suppl 4: S247-54
• 7 de Blacam C, Vercler CJ. Teaching ethics and professionalism in plastic surgery: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72: 484-8
• 8 Manassa EH, Hertl CH, Olbrisch RR. Wound healing problems in smokers and nonsmokers after 132 abdominoplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111: 2082-7
• 9 Bhargava D. Abdominoplasty today. Indian J Plast Surg 2008; 41(Suppl): S20-6
• 10 Matarasso A, Matarasso DM, Matarasso EJ. Abdominoplasty: classic principles and technique. Clin Plast Surg 2014; 41: 655-72