pretty good plastic vs. really great?

[Doublecortin]

I was wondering, for all any of you who might be in the know,
what sets apart the guys who become the shining stars in plastics and whom people seek from all over the world from plastics who are ok, or pretty good, but not stellar?

Is it all about how bad you want it, and how hard you are willing to work in residency, and later in practice to become the very best? Or does at some point your natural talent, some sort of artistic ability has to kick in in order for you to be in the top 1%?

Thanks for any comments

Actually, I would like to clarify my question: by " top 1%" I mean not in terms of $$$ but in terms of quality of procedures, skill, talent, ability. . . that kind of stuff

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[plastikosmd]

from what i have seen there is no correlation between surgical skill and the ability to make money. for every 1 surgeon you point to with skill and very high income i can point to 2 with no skill, no boards, not even working in the field that they trained and making a ton. to be in the upper percent for making money, like in any field, you must be driven, have a good sense of business, use various forms of marketing...etc. and you may not be able to operate your way out of a paper bag. If you got hands and a good sense of clinical decision making, that is great....but sadly doesnt seem to be necessary.

 

[droliver]

what sets apart the guys who become the shining stars in plastics and whom people seek from all over the world from plastics who are ok, or pretty good, but not stellar?

Marketing for the most part.

 

[Moravian]

I would agree with Droliver that marketing can make a huge difference. Unfortunately, I have seen the marketing aspect carried too far. The American Board of Plastic Surgery and the ASPS have rules about marketing that can be ignored if you're not boarded and not a member (like the 90210 guy).

There are many "famous" names in plastic that got there by various means. Paul Tessier, the acknowledged father of modern craniofacial surgery, got his reputation by being a pioneer in the field. He didn't publish a lot of his work early on and this was capitalized on by some big names in the U.S. He would come to the states and show various surgeons how to do the cases. Some of these people published the work as if it was their own. They later had to publish retractions after Tessier complained but their reputation didn't suffer, and in fact, one or two of them became "famous."

Sticking with the "Tessier theme," there are more than a few "famous" craniofacial surgeons who enhanced their academic status by claiming that they were Tessier fellows when in fact they spent 6 weeks in Paris and never operated. I know this because I'm trained by one of the few "real" fellows that trained with Tessier for a year and was involved with craniofacial surgery since the first time Tessier put rigid plates on a skull.

I can tell you about another big name surgeon who made his reputation from blowing the whistle on his predecessor's data and showing the how the earlier thinking about certain things was untrue. Granted, it needed to be done, but that's all this guy really did and he's still considered a big name.
Then there are the guys who are really phenomenal surgeons and are also well known. Again, marketing helps, as does being lucky. But many of these people got there by working hard and publishing innovations that have stood the test of time. And, as pointed out by PlastikosMD, I've also seen some really heavy hitters that I wouldn't want operating on me or my family. How did these guys get there? A little bit of all the stuff mentioned. Being political doesn't hurt either.