Your Villa Magazine - Foothill Cities - July-September - 2022

Gregory J. Vipond, M.D., F.R.C.S.C. VIP Facial Artistry (909) 608-7770 drvipond@drvipond.org www.drvipondplasticsurgery.com 1601 Monte Vista Avenue Suite 200, Claremont, CA 91711 Facial Artistry Gregory J. Vipond MD, Inc. New patients mention ‘ YOUR VILLA ’ and receive $50 OFF your first treatment! *Cannot be combined with others offers. Expires 9/30/2022 I just returned from an international conference on Cosmetic Surgery and Aesthetic Dermatology and thought that, for this editorial, I would discuss my thoughts on it. The Vegas Cosmetic Surgery Conference is one that I have attended since 2011. I don’t necessarily go every year, but like that it incorporates Facial Plastic Surgeons, General Plastic Surgeons, Oculoplastic Surgeons, and Dermatologists. Each specialty tends to have its own thoughts and opinions and I enjoy hearing different perspectives than my own. One thing that I have noticed, is that this conference has begun to change over time. Initially, the conference was almost all surgical with lectures and presentations being given by respected surgeons within their field. Unfortunately, the field of CME (Continuing Medical Education) has been changing and is now dominated by for-profit groups rather than medical societies. Along with this change, we have seen the creation of a type of physician called a KOL (Key Opinion Leader). Physicians tend to trust other physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device companies realize this and have acquired most of these KOLs as “consultants” and sponsored speakers. What I have come to realize, is that many of the KOLs act as salespeople for whatever company writes them a check and it is not uncommon to see a KOL endorse one device/ company one year and then endorse its competitor the next. No longer can you count on these physicians to offer an honest, objective opinion about a treatment or medical device and must just come to terms with the fact that they are going to support whoever pays them. Additionally, these companies pay very large fees to sponsor the conference and to have exhibit booths, so the conference organizers become very accommodating to their demands. As a result, there has been a huge increase in “Sponsored Workshops” which are glorified infomercials for various products. There is no requirement to present unbiased, scientific opinions, so much so that participants cannot receive CME credits for these sessions. This year, the maximum number of credits that could be claimed was 17.hours. When I first attended this conference, 36 hours could be claimed. This represents a decrease of over 50% in the educational content of this conference. The trickle-down effect of this shift is to effectively make conference participants targets for these companies to peddle their wares. Participants are encouraged to visit the exhibit booths as well as attend sponsored events where various devices and treatments are promoted. Consequently, many of these participants make purchases that they then must push on their patients to pay off the cost of the purchase. Therein lies an ethical conflict where the provider has two opposing interests: paying off the purchase/financial gain and doing what is in the best interest of the patient. In an ideal situation, these two interests are aligned, and the device/ treatment will deliver as promised to benefit the patient. However, most of these large medical device companies are publicly traded and have stockholders to satisfy. To maximize the sales of these devices, in addition to paying for KOLs, they have huge marketing budgets which often exaggerate their benefits while downplaying the risks. The onus then lies on the physician to be very discerning and skeptical when considering such a purchase. In my facial plastic surgery training, my director was a great example of not being discerning enough: there were old laser devices that were gathering dust in closets and offices because they did not deliver on their salesperson’s promises. Because of my experience seeing this, I have become very critical of adopting new technologies in my practice. That is not to say that I don’t buy new devices, just that I prefer to study and evaluate them prior to adopting them for general patient use. If I don’t believe that something will work, then I am not going to purchase it and then try to sell patients on false promises. The point of this editorial is not to disparage new technologies and the companies that develop them, but to illuminate the pressure on practitioners to buy and adapt new technologies before properly vetting them. As patients, it is imperative that you understand the nature of any treatment, including its proposed benefits, risks, alternative options, and realistic results. A sense of trust that the practitioner has your best interests in mind is also essential. The aim of my practice is to educate patients and empower them to make decisions that will be best for their goals. As for the medical conferences, I will continue to attend to learn about these new technologies and critically evaluate them so that I can pass this knowledge on to my patients. —Gregory J. Vipond, M.D. COSMETIC CORNER