ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the safety of breast implants, some women associate their implants with adverse health effects and have called this syndrome "breast implant illness." We sought to characterize breast implant illness symptoms and to report how implant removal affects their symptoms. METHODS: An anonymous 20 question survey was administered to the Facebook group: "UTAH Breast Implant Illness" to characterize the symptoms these women attributed to their breast implants. Several questions allowed us to evaluate how implant removal affected women's symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 182 respondents, 97% report that implants negatively affect their health and 95% identify these symptoms with breast implant illness. Ninety-six percent of respondents had implants placed for cosmetic reasons and 51% had silicone implants. The most common symptoms associated with breast implant illness are brain fog (95%), fatigue (92%), joint pain (80%), and hair loss (74%). Sixty percent of respondents learned about breast implant illness from family/friends and/or social media platforms (56%), 40% of respondents had their implants removed, and 97% report relief of their symptoms post-removal (23% complete, 74% partial). Following explantation, there was a significant improvement in all but one reported symptom. An association was found between the number of symptoms reported prior to explantation and the number of symptoms resolving following explantation. CONCLUSIONS: Breast implant illness is a syndrome characterized by fatigue, decreased focus, hair loss, and joint pain after the placement of breast implants. Nearly all patients report improvement of symptoms after implant removal. Significant efforts should be made to better understand breast implant illness and its etiology.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the publication productivity of academic urologists in the United States by gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gender inequality is prevalent in most surgical subspecialties, including urology. Despite small numbers of women in academic positions, differences in scholarly impact by gender are relatively unknown. We assembled a list of 1922 academic urologists (1686 men (87.7%), 236 women (12.3%)) at 124 academic institutions throughout the United States as of February 2016. Scopus and Google Scholar were queried for bibliometric data on each individual, including h-index and m-quotient. We analyzed these metrics for both genders by educational background, subspecialty, National Institutes of Health funding, and academic rank. RESULTS: Men had higher median h-indices than women overall (P < .05), and had higher successive academic ranks (P < .05). Proportionally fewer women attained senior academic ranking (professor/chair), (P < .05). There was no difference in research productivity by successive rank after controlling for career duration (m-quotient). Women were more likely to choose a practice that specialized in pediatric urology or female urology/pelvic reconstructive surgery than their male counterparts (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Women represent a growing proportion of academic urology faculty, but despite the recent increase in number entering the field, relatively few women occupy senior leadership positions. Improving psychosocial barriers to advancement such as lack of mentorship or discriminatory policies may help pioneering female urologists as they progress in their careers.
