Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

An Analysis of Differences in the Number of Children for Female and Male Plastic Surgeons

Furnas, Heather J., M.D.; Li, Alexander Y., M.D.; Garza, Rebecca M., M.D.; Johnson, Debra J., M.D.; Bajaj, Anureet K., M.D.; Kalliainen, Loree K., M.D.; Weston, Jane S., M.D.; Song, David H., M.D., M.B.A.; Chung, Kevin C., M.D., M.S.; Rohrich, Rod J., M.D.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: January 2019 - Volume 143 - Issue 1 - p 315–326
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005097
Plastic Surgery Focus: Women in Plastic Surgery
Podcast
Journal Club

Background: Historically, the structure of surgical programs discourages women interested in both surgery and motherhood from pursuing a surgical career, and women plastic surgeons have been more likely than men to have no children or to have fewer, later in life. Female plastic surgery trainees now constitute over one-third of residents, and pregnancy rates can be expected to rise, but with women now a majority in medical schools, the specialty’s maternity policies may be deterring interested women from entering the specialty. A survey study was conducted to measure reproductive outcomes and to identify current disparities between women and men plastic surgeons.

Methods: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to American Society of Plastic Surgeons members and candidates, allowing comparisons of men’s and women’s responses. Differences were tested by the Fisher’s exact and chi-square tests.

Results: Compared with male respondents, women were more likely than men to have no biological children (45.1 percent versus 23.1 percent). They were nearly twice as likely to delay having children because of the demands of training (72.6 percent versus 39.2 percent) and to experience infertility (26.3 percent versus 12.5 percent). Among the childless plastic surgeons, women were 11 times more likely to say they did not want children compared with men (20.1 percent versus 1.8 percent).

Conclusions: Poor institutional maternity support results in a persistent, wide gap in reproductive outcomes between female and male plastic surgeons. Establishing a universal, comprehensive parental support policy is essential to closing that gap.

This and Related “Classic” Articles Appear on Prsjournal.com for Journal Club Discussions.

Stanford and Davis, Calif.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Chapel Hill, N.C.; Washington, D.C.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; and Dallas, Texas

From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California; Bajaj Plastic Surgery; the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of North Carolina; the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown; the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School; and the Dallas Plastic Surgery Institute.

Received for publication August 8, 2017; accepted May 4, 2018.

Disclosure: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article. Dr. Rohrich receives instrument royalties from Eriem Surgical, Inc., and book royalties from Thieme Medical Publishing. He is a clinical and research expert for Allergan, Inc., and MTF Biologics, and the owner of Medical Seminars of Texas, LLC. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Heather J. Furnas, M.D., 4625 Quigg Drive, Santa Rosa, Calif. 95409, drfurnas@enhanceyourimage.com, Twitter: @drheatherfurnas, Instagram: @drheatherfurnas, Facebook: Heather Furnas

In recent years, the number of women enrolled in U.S. medical schools has surpassed the number of men, yet male plastic surgery residents continue to outnumber women by a factor of almost 2.1 , 2 Historically, the structure of surgical programs discourages women interested in both surgery and motherhood from pursuing a surgical career.3–6 The long, demanding training in plastic surgery coincides with prime childbearing years. Because a woman bears the physical demands of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, a pregnant female resident suffers far greater stress than does her male counterpart when starting a family. Despite these reproductive disparities, the number of female plastic surgeons has grown, and with over one-third of trainees being women, we can expect pregnancy rates among residents to rise as well.2 , 7–11 Prior studies have compared the reproductive lives of female and male plastic surgeons, but their results may be outdated with the significant increase in the number of women entering the specialty.12–15

Six decades ago, when gender roles were more distinct, women made up less than 1 percent of new plastic surgery diplomates.12 A woman breaking tradition by entering a surgical residency was expected to replicate the zero pregnancy rate of her male colleagues.16–19 Consequently, compared with male surgeons, female surgeons had children later in life, fewer of them, or none at all, correlating with their higher infertility rates.3 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 20–25 Reflecting the unwritten pressure to avoid pregnancy during residency, plastic surgery trainees had an elective abortion rate 400 percent higher than that of women in other specialties.16 If they did get pregnant, female plastic surgery trainees had higher complication rates in comparison with their male colleagues’ female partners.16

Reflecting the rising number of women plastic surgeons, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery launched a Special Topic Series in September of 2016, entitled “Women in Plastic Surgery.”26–39 Among the topics the series explored were reproductive issues, maternity leave in residency,26 and plastic surgeons’ personal experiences with pregnancy and infertility.27 , 28 Although the series described reproductive challenges that women face in a plastic surgical career, the degree to which they are uniquely impacted requires a comparison between women and men.

The aim of this investigation is to identify current differences in the perceptions, experiences, and outcomes in the reproductive lives of women and men plastic surgeons. By identifying disparities, we hope to clarify the impact that the structure of current surgical programs may have on women’s reproductive lives and on narrowing the pool of female medical students who choose a surgical career.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all members and candidates of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons using SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.). The survey used skip-logic, in which the answer to a current question determined the next question, and contained 152 possible questions regarding the personal and professional lives of plastic surgeons, 37 of which are analyzed and discussed here. The remaining questions are analyzed in a separate article.39 Questions regarding pregnancy during residency were asked only of female respondents. The questions were beta tested with a voluntary cohort and then revised. The Western Institutional Review Board determined that the survey met exemption criteria. The survey was e-mailed in three deployments between November 3, 2016, and January 26, 2017, with an incentive accompanying the final deployment for a raffle to win free Plastic Surgery Education Network courses. Deidentified survey responses were recorded in a password-protected database.

Comparisons of cohort responses to questions were conducted between female and male respondents. All categorical variables were described by counts and percentages. Differences between cohort distributions were tested by the Fisher’s exact and chi-square tests. Given the disproportionate responses by gender to this survey, a weighted adjustment was made to correct for selection bias on the overall American Society of Plastic Surgeons gender distribution. Tests of significance were performed on all outcomes using an alpha value of 0.05.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Demographic Data

There were 757 total respondents, giving a response rate of 15 percent. Of the total respondents, 448 (59.2 percent) were male and 309 (40.8 percent) were female. Overall, the female respondents were younger, and more were trainees compared with the male respondents (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Infertility, Childlessness, and Nonbiological Children

Women were significantly more likely than men to have had an infertility problem, to have fewer children, and to have remained childless (Fig. 1). Less than 5 percent of all respondents had stepchildren or adopted children, and the differences between sexes were not statistically significant (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2

Table 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Childbearing and Training

Men were significantly more likely than women to have had children before age 30, although both women and male respondents’ partners were equally likely to get pregnant before residency. In contrast, during training, women were significantly more likely to avoid pregnancy or to have no more than one child if they did get pregnant than were the co-residents’ female partners (Table 2). Compared with men, women were significantly more likely to delay having children because of the demands of training, although both women and men cited long work hours as the most significant reason for a delay (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3

Table 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Miscarriages and Pregnancy Terminations

Miscarriage rates were similar among all respondents, as were elective abortion rates. None of the 81 female respondents electively terminated a pregnancy, but six partners of the 170 male respondents did. In this small sample, the demands of training influenced two-thirds of these terminations (Table 2).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pregnancy

Ten percent of pregnant residents felt they worked harder during their pregnancy, and only 1.2 percent reported working less. Just over 40 percent of women felt their pregnancy increased workloads for their colleagues, yet nearly the same percentage believed their colleagues’ workloads were not increased. Just under half of women respondents had a complication of pregnancy during training, the most common being preterm labor, followed by a baby that was small for gestational age (Table 5).

Table 5

Table 5

Back to Top | Article Outline

Parental Leave

Over 80 percent of pregnant residents worked until initiation of labor, and just under one-third took 1 month or less of leave. Of all plastic surgeons who had children during training, men were much more likely to state their program had maternity and paternity leave policies, and women were more likely to state that neither existed. Nearly all respondents felt surgery programs should have comprehensive parental leave policies (Table 6).

Table 6

Table 6

In a survey question regarding desired changes in the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 37 women wrote comments. Although the question did not mention parental leave, nine respondents urged American Society of Plastic Surgeons support of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and onsite childcare in residency, at conferences, for faculty, and at hospitals. Of the 14 comments from men, two addressed those issues (Table 7).

Table 7

Table 7

Back to Top | Article Outline

Breastfeeding

Most mothers breastfed or expected to do so. Nearly half of respondents breastfed or planned to do so for 6 months or less. Work forced two-thirds of women to curtail breastfeeding sooner than they wished, with contributing factors including the unpredictability of the workday, difficulty breaking scrub to pump breast milk, and time constraints (Table 8).

Table 8

Table 8

Back to Top | Article Outline

Involvement with Children

Among those who had children, over twice as many women were dissatisfied with their level of involvement with their children compared with men (Table 2).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Support for Pregnancy in Training

Women were significantly more likely to support a co-resident’s pregnancy during training than were men. Conversely, a significantly higher percentage of women felt their program director/chief/chair would not support their decision to have a child during training (Table 9).

Table 9

Table 9

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

In the late nineteenth century, William Halsted (1852 to 1922) erected the scaffolding of the rigorous U.S. surgical training structure in which unmarried, childless men resided in the hospital around the clock. Halsted himself delayed marriage until he approached 40, and he never had children.40 The rules eased with time, allowing male residents to marry, have children, and live outside the hospital. The few women accepted into surgical training programs adopted the no-pregnancy reproductive model of the male resident. Although much of that structure still stands, more recent improvements in plastic surgery training programs include a 4-week annual leave allowance averaged at each program director’s discretion and 2 additional extended-leave weeks allowed the last 2 plastic surgery training years.41

Until recently, women were minorities not only in surgery but in all specialties. Understanding surgical training’s unique impact on women begins with examining medical school populations, which are the raw material of training programs. In 1979, women constituted just 23 percent of medical school classes.42 By 1997, that number had risen to 41 percent, and by 2016, women had become the majority at 52 percent.1 , 42 During those same decades, the percentage of female plastic surgeons rose dramatically, from 2.1 percent in the 1970s, to 13.5 percent in the 1990s, to 23.5 percent in this incomplete decade.2 , 12 These numbers indicate that despite their current majority numbers in medical schools, women remain a significant minority in plastic surgery residency programs.

Female and male plastic surgeons receive the same training and pass the same board examination, but they differ in their reproductive lives. With women having fewer children later in life or none at all, disparities have persisted over time3 , 13–15 , 20–23 , 43–46 (Tables 2 and 10). One possible reason for this childbearing gap is that women plastic surgeons are less interested in having children. In fact, among respondents without children, women were 11 times more likely than men to not want children (Table 3). Historically, however, both female and male physicians have desired a similar number of children,46 indicating that surgery’s training structure and culture likely serve as major deterrents to women from choosing a surgical career, particularly if they desire children. In fact, female medical students wanting families are less likely to choose a surgical career based on perceptions of longer training, poor maternity support, risks of advanced-maternal-age pregnancy, and infertility.3–6 The marked gender disparity among those not wanting children indicates that our specialty may be losing excellent candidates by thwarting talented medical students who also want to achieve motherhood from considering a career in plastic surgery.

Given the conflict between adequate maternity leave provisions and the annual 48-work-week requirement of residencies, it is no surprise that in the present study only 30 percent of women plastic surgeons felt their program directors supported their choice to have a child. A young mother’s maternity leave typically results in increased workloads borne by sometimes resentful co-residents,24 , 26 , 47–50 which may explain why the men in this study were less likely than the women to support a pregnant co-resident (Table 3). Historically, women residents have avoided having children during residency, sometimes quietly undergoing elective abortions during training to do so.16 , 23 , 45 , 47 , 51–53

Survey respondents who agreed that the problems associated with maternity leave and service coverage could be solved by delaying pregnancy until after training emphasized the elective nature of pregnancy as justification. Certainly, birth control and abortions prevent childbearing during training, but a woman cannot change her intrinsic biology. Her ovaries and uterus undergo involutional changes as she ages, lowering her fertility. Age-related infertility can result in depression, anxiety, and stigmatization, affecting women more than men.43 , 54–57 Even if she is able to conceive, an older pregnant woman faces heightened health risks to both her fetus and herself, including intrauterine fetal death and perinatal mortality.13 , 15 , 16 , 26 , 58–60 Reflecting these age-related biological changes, women in this study were significantly more likely than men to experience infertility, to have fewer children, and to be childless (Tables 2 and 3 and Fig. 1).

Some survey respondents suggested having a child during a research year as a suitable alternative to postponing pregnancy until completion of training. Although this option works well for some, women in their 30s can experience escalating difficulty conceiving, potentially sabotaging attempts to time a pregnancy during a given calendar year.58 Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies occur, and to assume otherwise ignores the reality implied by the historically high surgical residents’ abortion rate.16 , 26

None of the women respondents in the current study had an abortion during training, indicating that antipregnancy pressures may be abating. This plunge from a rate of 26 percent in 199516 may be the result of improved birth control methods or a greater acceptance of pregnancy among women residents (Table 10). Interestingly, the partners of six male respondents did terminate pregnancies, with four doing so in part because of the demands of the respondent’s training (Table 2). Men hoping to be active fathers may be postponing fatherhood until completion of residency or their partners may be hard-working residents or other professionals postponing motherhood.16 Both possibilities are associated with evolving gender roles.

Table 10

Table 10

If a woman gets pregnant during clinical training, the guilt arising from taking maternity leave and burdening co-residents with extra work may pressure her to take extra call. That additional call may explain why 10 percent of respondents who were pregnant during training said they worked harder during pregnancy, and only 1.2 percent of respondents felt they worked less. Although pushing through fatigue and physical discomfort may be lauded in surgery, an increase in clinical responsibilities during pregnancy can come at a cost, as long cases, heavy workloads, and extra call put both mother and baby at risk.24 , 26 , 61–68 In fact, nearly half the respondents who were pregnant during residency in this study experienced complications, with 22.9 percent experiencing preterm labor/birth, compared with a 9.6 percent U.S. national average. In addition, 14.5 percent of respondents had babies that were small for gestational age, compared with 8.1 percent nationwide.68

After delivery, the vast majority of mothers in this study breastfed, but over two-thirds stopped before they wished. The respondents cited several contributing factors: unpredictable days, difficulty breaking scrub, lack of time, and the absence of a place to pump breast milk. Of the mothers who did breastfeed, nearly half did so for 6 months or less, falling short of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommended 12 months for babies’ medical and neurobiological benefits.69 , 70

A minority of men and even fewer women in this study were aware that their program had a parental leave policy with clear expectations (Table 6). At first glance, it may seem surprising that women, who require physical recovery after delivery, are less likely to be aware of clear parental leave policies. However, this lack of awareness likely reflects the significantly higher number of women respondents who had no interest in having children (one in five). Furthermore, programs with historically few pregnant residents, poorly defined maternity policies, short leave durations, absent on-site daycare, and poor breastfeeding allowances discourage residents from getting pregnant without explicitly stating so.71 , 72 In contrast, male residents, who more commonly have children during residency, would be more likely to inquire about a paternity leave policy.

Comments from some respondents stated that residency is about sacrifice. Indeed, residents sacrifice their time in long work hours and extended years of training; their mobility while working and taking call; and the forfeiture of opportunities arising outside of training. However, women desiring children potentially sacrifice their ability to conceive, as indicated by their higher infertility and lower birth rates (Tables 2 and 3).

Some of those who commented in this study viewed pregnancy as elective, selfish, and indicative of a woman’s lack of commitment, consistent with the perceptions of some faculty members, both female and male24 , 26 , 62 , 71 (Tables 4, 7, and 8). When a pregnant surgical resident is stigmatized by faculty and resented by co-residents, she can experience a decline in well-being.16 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 73 Both the guilt associated with pregnancy and the heartbreak of infertility may be conditions unknown and unfamiliar to a woman’s superiors.7 , 18 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 71

Table 4

Table 4

The specialty’s lack of recognition of women’s biological limitations perpetuates the disparity in gender reproductive outcomes. Pregnancy is almost never convenient, regardless of a mother’s job or circumstance, but many plastic surgeon mothers have demonstrated that it is possible to combine maternity leave, surgical training, and motherhood successfully. One study of pregnant general surgery residents showed that despite taking maternity leave, mothers’ case numbers and board pass rates were comparable with those of residents who took no leave.71 Similarly, a study of obstetrics and gynecology residents showed that pregnancy and delivery did not negatively impact their surgical training experience.72

Regardless of our institutions’ level of preparation, pregnancy rates among surgical residents are increasing.8 , 9 , 48 In the words of Dr. Linda G. Phillips, “Pregnancy or the potential for pregnancy clearly makes women different from men.”73 Continuing to pressure women to ignore their biology because it conflicts with a regimented training structure deprives them of a basic human right. This lack of pregnancy support will also continue to deter talented women from pursuing a career in plastic surgery.

This study had several limitations. A response rate of 15 percent is low. However, the authors determined that the best means to survey all North American plastic surgeons was through the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which has an even lower average survey response rate of 12 percent (range, 6 to 24 percent). In fact, statistical analysis confirmed that a response rate of 15 percent was acceptable for statistical significance. Another limitation was the disproportionate response rate of men compared with women; approximately 80 percent of American Society of Plastic Surgeons and resident members are men, a significantly greater percentage than the 59 percent of male survey respondents. Consequently, a weighted adjustment was used to account for the potential selection bias. Analysis of reproductive differences among age groups might have lent insight into evolution over time, but individual age groups were not sufficiently robust to yield statistical significance. In addition, questions could have been better aligned with previous studies for temporal comparison. Nonetheless, the volume of responses is comparable to other studies, and the results offer insight into the varying reproductive outcomes of women and men plastic surgeons.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Looking Forward to the Future of Plastic Surgery

Plastic surgery requires a lengthy training period that conflicts with women’s limited window of fertility. To allow women to enjoy the same reproductive options as men, our specialty must accept and welcome pregnancies among female plastic surgery trainees. We must work with the American Board of Plastic Surgery, the American Council of Graduate Medical Specialties, and parent institutions to develop comprehensive parental support within training programs and institutions, including adequate leave, flexible scheduling through hiring locum tenens personnel, on-site daycare, and accommodations to facilitate and encourage breastfeeding.26 Maternity support during peak fertility years will lower health risks to both mother and infant, decrease age-related infertility, broaden the pool of talented candidates, and improve resident well-being not only in plastic surgery but across all specialties.7 , 9–11 , 26 , 67–69 , 74–80

We will succeed in our support of women’s reproductive lives when women plastic surgeons desiring children can bear them during their prime fertility years and when female medical students choose their specialty based on a keen level of interest and are not dissuaded by surgery’s antipregnancy culture. Greater diversity in our specialty will enhance our talent pool, which is the raw material for greater successes and improved outcomes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Kevin C. Chung is currently receiving the Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (2 K24-AR053120-06) from the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to thank Christopher Simmons and Keith Hume for providing assistance with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons survey used in this article.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. American Association of Medical Colleges. Facts: Applicants, matriculants, enrollment, graduates, MD-PhD, and residency applicants data. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/ Accessed February 24, 2018.
2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Unpublished statistics, 2017.
3. Harris DL, Osborn LM, Schuman KL, Reading JC, Prather MB, Politzer RM. Implications of pregnancy for residents and their training programs. J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972) 1990;45:127–128, 131.
4. Shaw PM, Vouyouka A, Reed A. Time for radiation safety program guidelines for pregnant trainees and vascular surgeons. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55:862–868.e2.
5. Snyder RA, Bills JL, Phillips SE, Tarpley MJ, Tarpley JL. Specific interventions to increase women’s interest in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:942–947, 947.e1.
6. Blair JE, Mayer AP, Caubet SL, Norby SM, O’Connor MI, Hayes SN. Pregnancy and parental leave during graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2016;91:972–978.
7. Cole S, Arnold M, Sanderson A, Cupp C. Pregnancy during otolaryngology residency: Experience and recommendations. Am Surg. 2009;75:411–415.
8. Carty SE, Colson YL, Garvey LS, et al. Maternity policy and practice during surgery residency: How we do it. Surgery 2002;132:682–687; discussion 687688.
9. Smith C, Galante JM, Pierce JL, Scherer LA. The surgical residency baby boom: Changing patterns of childbearing during residency over a 30-year span. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5:625–629.
10. Harries RL, McGoldrick C, Mohan H, Fitzgerald JE, Gokani VJ; Council of the Association of Surgeons in Training. Less than full-time training in surgical specialities: Consensus recommendations for flexible training by the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int J Surg. 2015;23(Suppl 1):S10–S14.
11. Whiting JF. Invited commentary. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:1096–1097.
12. American Board of Plastic Surgery. Unpublished statistics, 2017.
13. Halperin TJ, Werler MM, Mulliken JB. Gender differences in the professional and private lives of plastic surgeons. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:775–779.
14. Frank E, Brownstein M, Ephgrave K, Neumayer L. Characteristics of women surgeons in the United States. Am J Surg. 1998;176:244–250.
15. Capek L, Edwards DE, Mackinnon SE. Plastic surgeons: A gender comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99:289–299.
16. Eskenazi L, Weston J. The pregnant plastic surgical resident: Results of a survey of women plastic surgeons and plastic surgery residency directors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;95:330–335.
17. Grassi C, Fripp V, Pories S. ACS WiSC addresses ongoing challenges for women in surgery. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2016;101:29–33.
18. Straehley CJ, Longo P. Family issues affecting women in medicine, particularly women surgeons. Am J Surg. 2006;192:695–698.
19. Willett LL, Wellons MF, Hartig JR, et al. Do women residents delay childbearing due to perceived career threats? Acad Med. 2010;85:640–646.
20. Phillips EA, Nimeh T, Braga J, Lerner LB. Does a surgical career affect a woman’s childbearing and fertility? A report on pregnancy and fertility trends among female surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:944–950.
21. Sandler BJ, Tackett JJ, Longo WE, Yoo PS. Pregnancy and parenthood among surgery residents: Results of the first nationwide survey of general surgery residency program directors. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:1090–1096.
22. Mackinnon SE, Mizgala CL, McNeill IY, Walters BC, Ferris LE. Women surgeons: Career and lifestyle comparisons among surgical subspecialties. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;95:321–329.
23. Chen MM, Yeo HL, Roman SA, Bell RH Jr, Sosa JA. Life events during surgical residency have different effects on women and men over time. Surgery 2013;154:162–170.
24. Finch SJ. Pregnancy during residency: A literature review. Acad Med. 2003;78:418–428.
25. Frank E, Brownstein M, Ephgrave K, Neumayer L. Characteristics of women surgeons in the United States. Am J Surg. 1998;176:244–250.
26. Garza RM, Weston JS, Furnas HJ. Pregnancy and the plastic surgery resident. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:245–252.
27. Furnas HJ, Lang DJ. Women in plastic surgery: Pregnancy. Available at: http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/pages/videogallery.aspx?videoId=1040&autoPlay=true. Accessed May 14, 2017.
28. Furnas HF, Lang DJ. Women in plastic surgery: Infertility. Available at: http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Pages/videogallery.aspx. Accessed June 15, 2017.
29. Cheesborough JE, Gray SS, Bajaj AK. Striking a better integration of work and life: Challenges and solutions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:495–500.
30. Johnson DJ, Shenaq D, Thakor M. Making the end as good as the beginning: Financial planning and retirement for women plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:935–940.
31. Fischer LH, Bajaj AK. Learning how to ask: Women and negotiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:753–758.
32. Furnas HF. Discussion: Understanding and overcoming implicit gender bias in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:117–1118.
33. Phillips NA, Tannan SC, Kalliainen LK. Understanding and overcoming implicit gender bias in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:1111–1116.
34. Furnas HJ, Johnson DJ, Bajaj AK, Kalliainen L, Rohrich RJ. Women and men in plastic surgery: How they differ and why it matters. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:743–745.
35. Silva AK, Preminger A, Slezak S, Phillips LG, Johnson DJ. Melting the plastic ceiling: Overcoming obstacles to foster leadership in women plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:721–729.
36. Silva AK, Song DH. Discussion: Making the end as good as the beginning: Financial planning and retirement for women plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:935–942.
37. Humphries LS, Butz DR, Song DH. Discussion: Pregnancy and the plastic surgery resident. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:253–255.
38. Johnson D. Discussion: Learning how to ask: Women and negotiation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:759–760.
39. Furnas HF, Garza RM, Li AY, et al. Gender differences in the professional and personal lives of plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:252–264.
40. Imber G. Genius on the Edge: The Bizarre Life of Dr. William Steward Halsted. 2010.New York,: Kaplan Publishing.
41. American Board of Plastic Surgery. Training requirements, page 21. Available at: https://www.abplasticsurgery.org/residents/training-requirements/. Accessed July 6, 2017.
42. Nonnemaker L. Women physicians in academic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:399–405.
43. Phillips EA, Nimeh T, Braga J, Lerner LB. Does a surgical career affect a woman’s childbearing and fertility? A report on pregnancy and fertility trends among female surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:944–950.
44. Schroen AT, Brownstein MR, Sheldon GF. Comparison of private versus academic practice for general surgeons: A guide for medical students and residents. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:1000–1011.
45. Sullivan MC, Yeo H, Roman SA, Bell RH Jr, Sosa JA. Striving for work-life balance: Effect of marriage and children on the experience of 4402 US general surgery residents. Ann Surg. 2013;257:571–576.
46. Gough HG, Hall WB. Number of children wanted and expected by American physicians. J Psychol. 1977;96:45–53.
47. Mayer KL, Ho HS, Goodnight JE Jr. Childbearing and child care in surgery. Arch Surg. 2001;136:649–655.
48. Smith C, Galante JM, Pierce JL, Scherer LA. The surgical residency baby boom: Changing patterns of childbearing during residency over a 30-year span. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5:625–629.
49. Caplan-Cotenoff SA. Parental leave: The need for a national policy to foster sexual equality. Am J Law Med. 1987;13:71–104.
50. Gardin SK, Richwald GA. Pregnancy and employment leave: Legal precedents and future policy. J Public Health Policy 1986;7:458–469.
51. Sinal S, Weavil P, Camp MG. Survey of women physicians on issues relating to pregnancy during a medical career. J Med Educ. 1988;63:531–538.
52. McGuire PA. Pregnancy and plastic surgery residency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92:978–979.
53. Cochran A, Melby S, Foy HM, Wallack MK, Neumayer LA. The state of general surgery residency in the United States: Program director perspectives, 2001. Arch Surg. 2002;137:1262–1265.
54. Burns LH. Psychiatric aspects of infertility and infertility treatments. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2007;30:689–716.
55. Cousineau TM, Domar AD. Psychological impact of infertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21:293–308.
56. Hämmerli K, Znoj H, Barth J. The efficacy of psychological interventions for infertile patients: A meta-analysis examining mental health and pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:279–295.
57. De Berardis D, Mazza M, Marini S, et al. Psychopathology, emotional aspects and psychological counselling in infertility: A review. Clin Ter. 2014;165:163–169.
58. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982–2010: Data from the national survey of family growth. Natl Health Stat Report 2013;67:1–18.
59. Nelson SM, Telfer EE, Anderson RA. The ageing ovary and uterus: New biological insights. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:67–83.
60. Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:727–733.
61. Pew Research Center: Social & Demographic Trends. Modern parenthood: Roles of moms and dads converge as they balance work and family. March 14, 2013. Available at: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/modern-parenthood-roles-of-moms-and-dads-converge-as-they-balance-work-and-family/. Accessed June 2, 2017.
62. Merchant SJ, Hameed SM, Melck AL. Pregnancy among residents enrolled in general surgery: A nationwide survey of attitudes and experiences. Am J Surg. 2013;206:605–610.
63. Behbehani S, Tulandi T. Obstetrical complications in pregnant medical students and surgical residents. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;36:25–31.
64. Turner PL, Lumpkins K, Gabre J, Lin MJ, Liu X, Terrin M. Pregnancy among women surgeons: Trends over time. Arch Surg. 2012;147:474–479.
65. Quansah R, Gissler M, Jaakkola JJ. Work as a physician and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A Finnish nationwide population-based registry study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24:531–536.
66. Katz VL, Miller NH, Bowes WA Jr. Pregnancy complications of physicians. West J Med. 1988;149:704–707.
67. Klevan JL, Weiss JC, Dabrow SM. Pregnancy during pediatric residency: Attitudes and complications. Am J Dis Child. 1990;144:767–769.
68. National Center for Health Statistics. Births and natality. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htmCenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention. Accessed June 28, 2017.
69. American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy statement: Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/2/496. Accessed June 2, 2017.
70. United States Breastfeeding Committee. Workplace Accommodations to Support and Protect Breastfeeding. 2010. Washington, DC: United States Breastfeeding Committee; Available at: http://www.usbreastfeeding.org/workplace-law. Accessed October 31, 2017.
71. Sayres M, Wyshak G, Denterlein G, Apfel R, Shore E, Federman D. Pregnancy during residency. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:418–423.
72. Sandler BJ, Tackett JJ, Longo WE, Yoo PS. Pregnancy and parenthood among surgery residents: Results of the first nationwide survey of general surgery residency program directors. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:1090–1096.
73. Lashbrook DL, Frazier LM, Horbelt DV, Stembridge TW, Rall MJ. Pregnancy during obstetrics and gynecology residency: Effect on surgical experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:662–665.
74. Phillips LG. Pregnancy and plastic surgery residency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92:977–978; author reply 978979.
75. Key LL Jr. Child care supplementation: Aid for residents and advantages for residency programs. J Pediatr. 2008;153:449–450.
76. Mozurkewich EL, Luke B, Avni M, Wolf FM. Working conditions and adverse pregnancy outcome: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:623–635.
77. Davis JL, Baillie S, Hodgson CS, Vontver L, Platt LD. Maternity leave: Existing policies in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1093–1098.
78. American Association of Medical Colleges. Number of active residents, by type of medical school, GME specialty, and gender: 2015–2016 active residents. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/data. Accessed June 2, 2017.
79. American Academy of Pediatrics. Position paper. Parental leave for residents and pediatric training programs: Section on medical students, residents, and fellowship trainees committee on early childhood. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/2/387.short?rss=1. Accessed June 2, 2017.
80. Parental leave for residents. American College of Surgeons. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:1035–1038.
©2019American Society of Plastic Surgeons