Brett Phillips

Positions:

Assistant Professor of Surgery

Surgery, Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

B.A. 2003

New York University

M.D. 2007

Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine

M.B.A. 2011

State University of New York, Stony Brook

General Surgery Resident, Surgery

Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine

Research Fellow, Surgery

Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine

General Surgery Resident, Surgery

Stony Brook University, Renaissance School of Medicine

Plastic Surgery Resident, Surgery

Duke University School of Medicine

Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery, Surgery

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Grants:

A Multi-institutional Randomized Controlled Trial to Determine the Optimal Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Tissue Expander-based Breast Reconstruction

Administered By
Surgery, Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery
Awarded By
The Plastic Surgery Foundation
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

A Single Arm, Prospective, Open Label, Single Center Study to Evaluate the SPY PHI Fluorescence Imaging Assessment Software and Determine the Effectiveness of Intraoperative Perfusion Assessment and Identification of Viable and Non-Viable Tissue duri

Administered By
Surgery, Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery
Awarded By
Stryker Corporation
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Correction to: Dissatisfaction After Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Authors
Shammas, RL; Fish, LJ; Sergesketter, AR; Offodile, AC; Phillips, BT; Oshima, S; Lee, CN; Hollenbeck, ST; Greenup, RA
MLA Citation
Shammas, Ronnie L., et al. “Correction to: Dissatisfaction After Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Mixed-Methods Study.Annals of Surgical Oncology, Sept. 2021. Epmc, doi:10.1245/s10434-021-10796-3.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1496634
PMID
34514524
Source
epmc
Published In
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published Date
DOI
10.1245/s10434-021-10796-3

Disparities between Operative Time and Relative Value Units for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgeons are evaluated not only by the number of patients served but also by relative value, quantified by the Medicare relative value unit system, which can affect advancement and compensation. Procedures that demand a high operative time without an increase in relative value units are, by definition, inefficient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the number of relative value units actually corresponds to operative time. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets over a 9-year period were queried for plastic surgery operations. The primary CPT codes representing the 100 most common operations were compared for operative time and total relative value units. RESULTS: A total of 53,701 cases were included. There was a high degree of correlation between operative time and number of relative value units (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.82). The average efficiency was 10.201 ± 3.386 relative value units per hour. Pressure ulcer excisions and breast reconstruction were among the most efficient (e.g., Excision, sacral pressure ulcer, CPT 19357, generated 20.819 relative value units per hour). Skin excisions, débridements, and flap delays were among the least efficient (e.g., Excision, excessive skin and subcutaneous tissue, CPT 15847, generated 1.752 relative value units per hour). CONCLUSIONS: As a general trend, the most common plastic surgical procedures requiring longer operative times are associated with more relative value units. Cases with higher relative value units assigned tended to be more efficient. For the 100 most common procedures, relative value units and operative time are not evenly distributed. These data suggest modifications to the current relative value unit designation system to more equally allocate these units based on effort and time.
Authors
MLA Citation
Blau, Jared A., et al. “Disparities between Operative Time and Relative Value Units for Plastic Surgery Procedures.Plast Reconstr Surg, vol. 148, no. 3, Sept. 2021, pp. 638–44. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008276.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1442649
PMID
34432696
Source
pubmed
Published In
Plast Reconstr Surg
Volume
148
Published Date
Start Page
638
End Page
644
DOI
10.1097/PRS.0000000000008276

Social media: Is it worth the hype for plastic surgery residency program recruitment?

Authors
Langdell, HC; Levites, HA; Lebhar, MS; Wickenheisser, VA; Phillips, BT
MLA Citation
Langdell, Hannah C., et al. “Social media: Is it worth the hype for plastic surgery residency program recruitment?J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, vol. 74, no. 9, Sept. 2021, pp. 2392–442. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.091.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1484952
PMID
33931328
Source
pubmed
Published In
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
Volume
74
Published Date
Start Page
2392
End Page
2442
DOI
10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.091

Staying Close to Home: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Plastic Surgery Residency Match.

The 2019 novel coronavirus created unique challenges for the integrated plastic surgery match. The goal of this study was to evaluate the trends of the 2020 and 2021 integrated plastic surgery match specifically related to the 2019 novel coronavirus. Methods: Three separate individual surveys were designed for integrated plastic surgery program directors and applicants from the 2021 to 2020 match. The surveys were distributed to the email addresses of applicants that applied to our institution's integrated residency program. Information of current interns and newly matched applicants from program websites and certified social media accounts were recorded. Results: We received completed surveys from 19 of the 69 program directors for a response rate of 27.5%. The survey for the 2020 and 2021 match applicants was completed by 25 and 68 applicants, respectively, for a response rate of 6.1% and 21.9%. There was a significant difference in the average number of completed virtual subinternships between applicants that did and did not successfully match into plastic surgery (1.48 versus 0.36, P = 0.01). The rate of students matching at their home institution was the highest in 2021 at 26% compared to 2020 (18%) and 2019 (15%). Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that applicants were more likely to match at programs with which they had established previous connections, including home institutions. Applicants also had a higher likelihood to match if they completed a virtual subinternship during the 2021 match. Learning points can be applied to the upcoming application cycle to improve the overall experience.
Authors
Hollins, AW; Zhang, GX; Stoehr, JR; Atia, A; Sergesketter, AR; Wickenheisser, VA; Ko, JH; Phillips, BT
MLA Citation
Hollins, Andrew W., et al. “Staying Close to Home: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Plastic Surgery Residency Match.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, vol. 9, no. 9, Sept. 2021, p. e3864. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003864.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1498831
PMID
34595084
Source
pubmed
Published In
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Volume
9
Published Date
Start Page
e3864
DOI
10.1097/GOX.0000000000003864

Dissatisfaction After Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is associated with improved patient well-being after mastectomy; however, factors that contribute to post-surgical dissatisfaction remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Adult women who underwent post-mastectomy implant-based or autologous breast reconstruction between 2015 and 2019 were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews regarding their lived experiences with reconstructive care. Participants completed the BREAST-Q, and tabulated scores were used to dichotomize patient-reported outcomes as satisfied or dissatisfied (high or low) for each BREAST-Q domain. A convergent mixed-methods analysis was used to evaluate interviews for content related to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with breast reconstruction. RESULTS: Overall, we interviewed 21 women and identified 17 subcodes that corresponded with the five BREAST-Q domains. Sources of dissatisfaction were found to be related to the following domains: (a) low breast satisfaction due to asymmetry, cup size, and lack of sensation and physical feeling (n = 8, 38%); (b) poor sexual well-being due to shape, look and feel (n = 7, 78% [of 9 who discussed sexual well-being]); (c) reduced physical well-being of the chest due to persistent pain and weakness (n = 11, 52%); (d) reduced abdominal well-being due to changes in abdominal strength, numbness, and posture (n = 6, 38% [of 16 who underwent abdominally based reconstruction]); and (e) low psychosocial well-being impacted by an unexpected appearance that negatively influenced self-confidence and self-identity (n = 13, 62%). CONCLUSION: Patients may be unprepared for the physical, sexual, and psychosocial outcomes of breast reconstruction. Targeted strategies to improve preoperative education and shared decision making are needed to mitigate unexpectedness associated with breast reconstruction and related outcomes.
Authors
Shammas, RL; Fish, LJ; Sergesketter, AR; Offodile, AC; Phillips, BT; Oshima, S; Lee, CN; Hollenbeck, ST; Greenup, RA
MLA Citation
Shammas, Ronnie L., et al. “Dissatisfaction After Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Mixed-Methods Study.Ann Surg Oncol, Aug. 2021. Pubmed, doi:10.1245/s10434-021-10720-9.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1496049
PMID
34460034
Source
pubmed
Published In
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published Date
DOI
10.1245/s10434-021-10720-9