Background: Published literature functions as a key avenue for disseminating innovations and advancements in plastic surgery. This study aims to assess characteristics and trends of annually most-cited plastic surgery literature from the past fifteen years across eight journals. Methods: Scopus online database was used to identify the ten most-cited articles per year from 2010-2024 for each of eight prominent plastic surgery journals (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open; Annals of Plastic Surgery; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery; Aesthetic Surgery Journal; Journal of Craniofacial Surgery; Journal of Microsurgery; Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal). Articles were reviewed and tagged for subspecialties, study designs, content themes, and clinical takeaways by two independent authors. Summary statistics were prepared using STATA 18.5, and linear regression analyses and graphs were generated using GraphPad 10.6.1. Results: A total of 1,170 articles were included. Reconstructive (50.5%), breast (35.4%), cancer/oncology (19.1%), and aesthetic (16.0%) subspecialties were most represented. Significant increases were observed for education/research (p=0.015) and gender-affirming/transgender care (p=0.0013), while experimental/basic science (p=0.0057) and burns/wound healing (p=0.0193) significantly decreased (Figure 1). Retrospective cohort studies (31.5%) were most common, with significant increases in meta-analyses (p=0.0015), systematic reviews (p=0.0038), interventional studies (p=0.0209), and narrative reviews (p=0.0235). Methodology/technique (p=0.0003) and cell/tissue/animal studies (p=0.0484) significantly decreased (Figure 2). Most studies were level of evidence III (43.5%), with a significant decrease in level IV studies (p=0.0072). Novel/modified surgical approaches (27.9%) and technological advancements (24.9%) were most represented. Social determinants of health and health equity (p=0.0206), health policy (p=0.0335), residency programs (p=0.0477), and artificial intelligence (p=0.0059) significantly increased, while anatomy/landmarks (p=0.0049) and fat grafting (p=0.0018) significantly decreased. Risk factors/complications (50.8%), functional/cosmetic outcomes (47.7%), and diagnostic approaches (36.6%) were the most frequent clinical takeaways, with a significant increase in surgical training (p=0.001) and a significant decrease in functional/cosmetic outcomes (p=0.0048) (Figure 3). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that plastic surgery literature has shifted to reflect more patient-centered care for an increasingly diverse breadth of patients, prioritizing improvements in diagnostic approaches and patient satisfaction/quality of life. Moreover, increases in articles on surgical training, plastic surgery residency programs, and education/research reflect an increasing interest over time in plastic surgery training, potentially due to its increasing competitiveness.
Bhagwat et al. (Mon,) studied this question.