BACKGROUND: This study aims to pioneer in evaluating women's representation in plastic surgery innovations, focusing on mammary prosthesis devices' inventorship. Despite growing gender parity in the field, women's involvement in innovation remains underexplored. This is especially crucial, as the predominant recipients of these innovative technologies are women, urging a necessity for broader female engagement in pioneering surgical advancements. METHOD: Patents under the "A61F2/12: Mammary prostheses and implants" classification between the dates January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, were identified using Google Patents Advanced. Inclusion criteria included patents (not designs) in English and applications (not grants), with no litigation limitations. Data collected included ID, title, assignee (categorized as industry, academic, private, individual), inventors, and dates (priority, filing, and publication). Sex of inventors was identified with the literature validated gender API, with manual resolution of unresolved genders or with ga_accuracy scores of less than 75%. Data were analyzed using 2-tailed Student t tests, χ2 analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient (significance set at P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Of the more than 130,000 plastic surgery patents in English identified between the 10-year period, 1355 were classified as A61F2/12. A total of 374 unique patents were included for analysis (841 duplicates were removed, and 140 patents were excluded because of non-English character author names). There was a significant increase in patents over the decade (from 15 in 2011 to 88 in 2020, R2 = 0.74, P < 0.05), with a decrease in number of inventors per patent (R2 = 0.12, P < 0.05). Of the 1102 total inventors, 138 were female (11.2%), with a 4-fold increase in representation over the decade (R2 = 0.58, P < 0.05), including increase in patents filed with a woman first inventor (0%-14.8%). Women were equally likely to be first 3 inventors versus middle to last inventors (12.8% vs 11.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Over a decade, mammary device innovations rose significantly. Although women inventors' representation improved, it remains disproportionate compared with women in residency/practice. Hence, interventions should aim to align inventor representation with training ratios, through institutional optimization, reducing gender segmentation, and enhancing funding opportunities.

1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

From the Division of Plastic Surgery Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School Boston MA

See more in PubMed

Hong JP. Innovation in plastic surgery—why and how? Arch Plast Surg. 2021;48:471–472.

Park JE, Chang DW. Advances and innovations in microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:915e–924e.

Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, et al. Quantifying innovation in surgery. Ann Surg. 2014;260:205–211.

Bhatt NR, Davis NF, Dalton DM, et al. Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in urology. Urology. 2018;111:230–237.

Sampat B, Williams HL. How do patents affect follow-on innovation? Evidence from the human genome. Am Econ Rev. 2019;109:203–236.

Kwasnicki RM, Hughes-Hallett A, Marcus HJ, et al. Fifty years of innovation in plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:145–152.

Klifto KM, Payne RM, Siotos C, et al. Women continue to be underrepresented in surgery: a study of AMA and ACGME data from 2000 to 2016. J Surg Educ. 2020;77:362–368.

Reghunathan M, Parmeshwar N, Gallus KM, et al. Diversity in plastic surgery: trends in female representation at plastic surgery meetings. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(5S Suppl 4):S278–S282.

Gomez LE, Bernet P. Diversity improves performance and outcomes. J Natl Med Assoc. 2019;111:383–392.

Swartz HM, Clarkson RB. The measurement of oxygen in vivo using EPR techniques. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:1957–1975.

Alotaibi AS. Demographic and cultural differences in the acceptance and pursuit of cosmetic surgery: a systematic literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3501.

Xun H, Stonko DP, Goldsborough E, et al. A 10-year analysis of representation of women in patent applications and NIH funding in vascular surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2023;95:244–250.

Misa TJ. Gender bias in big data analysis. Information & culture. 2022;57:283–306.

Chary S, Amrein K, Soeteman DI, et al. Gender disparity in critical care publications: a novel female first author index. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:103.

Sebo P. Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:414–421.

Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Statistics Report. 2020:5. 2020. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2021.

Moseley SF. Everett Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory: its utility and value in public health. J Health Commun. 2004;9(Suppl 1):149–151.

Dearing JW. Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention development. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009;19:503–518.

Hughes AJ, Samson TD, Henry CR, et al. A descriptive analysis of integrated plastic surgery residency program directors in the United States. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;89:344–349.

Whisonant CT, Shahriari SR, Harrison J, et al. Evaluating the integrated plastic surgery residency match during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Cureus. 2021;13:e16988.

Helliwell LA, Hyland CJ, Gonte MR, et al. Bias in surgical residency evaluations: a scoping review. J Surg Educ. 2023;80:922–947.

Klein R, Julian KA, Snyder ED, et al. Gender bias in resident assessment in graduate medical education: review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:712–719.

Charlesworth TES, Banaji MR. Gender in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: issues, causes, Solutions. J Neurosci. 2019;39:7228–7243.

Su R, Rounds J. All STEM fields are not created equal: people and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Front Psychol. 2015;6:189.

Wang MT, Degol JL. Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2017;29:119–140.

Nielsen MW, Alegria S, Börjeson L, et al. Opinion: gender diversity leads to better science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:1740–1742.

Nielsen HB. Systematic review of near-infrared spectroscopy determined cerebral oxygenation during non-cardiac surgery. Front Physiol. 2014;5:93.

Napp C, Breda T. The stereotype that girls lack talent: a worldwide investigation. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eabm3689.

Mose JN. Representation of women in top executive positions in general medical-surgical hospitals in the United States. Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2021;2:124–132.

Ross MB, Glennon BM, Murciano-Goroff R, et al. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature. 2022;608:135–145.