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

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

Awarded By
Stryker Corporation
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Predicting Academic Performance during Plastic Surgery Residency: Can Step 2 Scores Reliably Replace Step 1?

OBJECTIVE: Step 1 will transition to a pass/fail system in 2022. This study aimed to characterize the effects of this change on integrated plastic surgery program directors' selection criteria and assess whether Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) can replace Step 1 as an application selection metric. DESIGN: Online survey that was administered to a collaborative group of ten plastic surgery program directors collecting USMLE Step 1, Step 2 CK, In-Service, and written board scores for 3 years of graduated integrated residents. SETTING: Ten academic integrated plastic surgery programs. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 80 graduated integrated plastic surgery residents. RESULTS: Across 80 included integrated residents, mean (SD) Step 1 score was 247 (13), Step 2 CK was 249 (13), PGY1-6 In-Service percentiles varied from 45 to 53 percentile, and written board pass rate was 98.3%. Both Step 1 and Step 2 CK correlated highly with In-Service percentiles (both p < 0.001), with Step 2 CK scores correlating similarly with In-Service performance compared to Step 1 (rho 0.359 vs. 0.355, respectively). Across applicant characteristics, program directors reported the highest relative increase in Step 2 CK importance after Step 1 transitions to pass/fail. CONCLUSIONS: Step 2 CK correlates similarly with plastic surgery In-Service performance compared to Step 1. While Step scores do not necessarily correlate with residency performance, Step 2 CK may also be used as an application screening metric for programs seeking objective data to differentiate plastic surgery applicants.
Authors
Sergesketter, AR; Shammas, RL; Langdell, HC; Geng, Y; Eberlin, KR; Fox, P; Ko, JH; Lifchez, SD; Momoh, AO; Nguyen, V; Tenenbaum, M; Thanik, V; Phillips, BT
MLA Citation
Sergesketter, Amanda R., et al. “Predicting Academic Performance during Plastic Surgery Residency: Can Step 2 Scores Reliably Replace Step 1?J Surg Educ, vol. 79, no. 3, May 2022, pp. 828–36. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.015.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1504736
PMID
34952820
Source
pubmed
Published In
J Surg Educ
Volume
79
Published Date
Start Page
828
End Page
836
DOI
10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.015

A Comparison of Complications in Therapeutic versus Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Reconstruction: A Paired Analysis.

<h4>Background</h4>Although breast reconstruction after bilateral mastectomies including a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is known to have a higher overall complication profile, whether reconstructive complication rates differ between the therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy sides remains unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>Women undergoing bilateral mastectomies with autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction for a unilateral breast cancer at a single institution were identified (2009 to 2019). Postoperative complications were stratified by laterality (therapeutic mastectomy versus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy). Paired data were analyzed to compare the risks of complications between prophylactic and therapeutic reconstruction sides in the same patient.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 130 patients (260 reconstructions) underwent bilateral autologous or implant-based reconstruction. Although most women underwent a simple mastectomy, a higher proportion of therapeutic mastectomies were modified radical mastectomies including axillary lymph node dissections compared to contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (15.4 percent versus 0 percent). Forty-four percent of women completed postmastectomy radiation therapy of the therapeutic side before definitive reconstruction. Overall, both therapeutic and prophylactic reconstructions had a similar incidence of reconstructive failure (p = 0.57), return to the operating room (p = 0.44), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.32), seroma (p = 0.82), fat necrosis (p = 0.16), wound infection (p = 0.56), and cellulitis (p = 0.56). Nearly one-fifth of patients experienced complications limited to the prophylactic side [contralateral prophylactic mastectomy reconstruction complications, n = 26 (20.0 percent); therapeutic mastectomy reconstruction complications, n = 15 (11.5 percent)].<h4>Conclusion</h4>Despite a history of local radiation therapy and more extensive oncologic surgery on the therapeutic side, there are no significant differences in the incidence of postsurgical complications on the therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy sides after bilateral reconstruction.<h4>Clinical question/level of evidence</h4>Risk, II.
Authors
Sergesketter, AR; Marks, C; Broadwater, G; Shammas, RL; Greenup, RA; Clancy, S; Plichta, JK; Hollenbeck, ST; Phillips, BT
MLA Citation
Sergesketter, Amanda R., et al. “A Comparison of Complications in Therapeutic versus Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Reconstruction: A Paired Analysis.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 149, no. 5, May 2022, pp. 1037–47. Epmc, doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000008981.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1512120
PMID
35245238
Source
epmc
Published In
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume
149
Published Date
Start Page
1037
End Page
1047
DOI
10.1097/prs.0000000000008981

An Ounce of Prediction is Worth a Pound of Cure: Risk Calculators in Breast Reconstruction.

Preoperative risk calculators provide individualized risk assessment and stratification for surgical patients. Recently, several general surgery-derived models have been applied to the plastic surgery patient population, and several plastic surgery-specific calculators have been developed. In this scoping review, the authors aimed to identify and critically appraise risk calculators implemented in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Included studies described the development of a novel risk calculator, or validation of an existing calculator, in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Results: In total, 4641 studies met criteria for title and abstract screening. Forty-seven were eligible for full-text review, and 28 met final inclusion criteria. The most common risk calculators included the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment score (n = 6 studies), modified frailty index (n = 3), Caprini score (n = 3), and ACS NSQIP calculator (n = 2). Calculators were applied to institutional data (n = 17), NSQIP (n = 6), and Tracking Outcomes in Plastic Surgery (n = 1) databases. Predicted outcomes included general postoperative complications (n = 17), venous thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism (n = 4), infection (n = 2), and patient reported outcomes (n = 2). Model accuracy was reported in 18 studies, and it varied significantly (accurate risk calculator 0.49-0.85). Conclusions: This is the first study to provide a systematic review of available risk calculators for breast reconstruction. Models vary significantly in their statistical basis, predicted outcomes, and overall accuracy. Risk calculators are valuable tools that may aid in individualized risk assessments, preoperative counseling, and expectation management in breast reconstruction.
Authors
Oleck, NC; Biswas, S; Shammas, RL; Naga, HI; Phillips, BT
MLA Citation
Oleck, Nicholas C., et al. “An Ounce of Prediction is Worth a Pound of Cure: Risk Calculators in Breast Reconstruction.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, vol. 10, no. 5, 2022, p. e4324. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000004324.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1524137
PMID
35702532
Source
pubmed
Published In
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Volume
10
Published Date
Start Page
e4324
DOI
10.1097/GOX.0000000000004324

Spotlight in Plastic Surgery: July 2021.

Authors
Phillips, BT; Francoisse, CA; Gonzalez, SR; Gupta, S; Hu, MS; Long, EA; Martinez Dorr, F; Mujadzic, MM; Nicolas, G; Viradia, R; Gosain, AK
MLA Citation
Phillips, Brett T., et al. “Spotlight in Plastic Surgery: July 2021.Plast Reconstr Surg, vol. 148, no. 1, July 2021, pp. 268–71. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008128.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1519599
PMID
34086618
Source
pubmed
Published In
Plast Reconstr Surg
Volume
148
Published Date
Start Page
268
End Page
271
DOI
10.1097/PRS.0000000000008128

Who's Auditioning Who? Applicant-Reported Elements of the Best and Worst Plastic Surgery Subinternships.

BACKGROUND: Many integrated plastic surgery applicants choose to complete one or more visiting subinternships or "away rotations" at programs outside of their home institution. As these rotations are so critical on both sides of the application process, the authors sought to identify the factors that influence subinternship experiences for plastic surgery applicants. METHODS: A survey was used to collect information about demographics, the subinternship experience, and interview preferences. The survey was distributed to current plastic surgery interns and applicants who applied to Duke Plastic Surgery in the 2019/2020 application cycle. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two responses were received (response rate, 35.2 percent). The mean number of subinternships completed was 4.47. The defining feature of respondents' best subinternship most often included engagement from faculty and residents, autonomy, and integration with the team. The worst feature of respondents' worst subinternship experience most often included a sense of disinterested or "malignant" residents and faculty, lacking operative/educational opportunities, and disorganization of the rotation. The majority of applicants (60.3 percent) would prefer to return for a standard interview day over interviewing while on rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The subinternship experience remains a critical part of the applicant experience when applying to integrated plastic surgery residency programs. The experience on these rotations leaves a lasting impression that is highly variable and influences future recommendations to peers. Rotating students value inclusivity and case volume, and they take note of negative interactions they witness among residents and faculty. These results can help as programs design their subinternship experience for visiting students in the future.
Authors
Wickenheisser, VA; Langdell, HC; Brown, DA; Phillips, BT
MLA Citation
Wickenheisser, Victoria A., et al. “Who's Auditioning Who? Applicant-Reported Elements of the Best and Worst Plastic Surgery Subinternships.Plast Reconstr Surg, vol. 149, no. 4, Apr. 2022, pp. 802e-809e. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008910.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1517787
PMID
35196271
Source
pubmed
Published In
Plast Reconstr Surg
Volume
149
Published Date
Start Page
802e
End Page
809e
DOI
10.1097/PRS.0000000000008910