About

Courtney H. Crombie, MD, is a board-certified plastic surgeon and an Associate Professor of Plastic Surgery at the University of Utah. She specializes in both cosmetic and reconstructive procedures, with a particular interest in complex corrective breast surgery for both cosmetic and reconstructive issues. Dr. Crombie has extensive experience in the newer technique of fat grafting, used for reconstructive contour deformities of the breast and extremities, as well as in facial cosmetic applications. She divides her professional time between the University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics, the VA Hospital, and maintains operating privileges at Primary Children’s Medical Center, Jordan Valley, and LDS Hospitals. She is also the Chief of Plastic Surgery at the VA Hospital. Her professional affiliations include membership in the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the American Society of Plastic Surgery. Dr. Crombie's background includes completing her undergraduate and medical degrees at the University of New Mexico, a residency in General Surgery at East Carolina University, and additional surgical training in Plastic Surgery at the University of Utah. Her work is characterized by a dedication to patient care, technical excellence, and compassionate interaction, as reflected in her high patient satisfaction ratings.

Research topics

• Surgery
• Medicine
• Political Science
• Computer Science
• Multimedia
• Medical emergency
• Internal medicine
• Internet privacy
• Visual arts
• Law
• Medical education
• Public administration

Selected publications

• Resident-run Clinic for Nonsurgical Injectable Facial Aesthetics: A Five-year Institutional Experience

  Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum · 2026-04-20

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract Background Resident-run clinics (RRCs) have become an important component of plastic surgery training. This study evaluates outcomes from a longitudinal RRC focused on neuromodulator and soft tissue filler injections over a 5 year period. Objectives To assess clinical outcomes, patient retention, resident experience by PGY level, and the safety of RRCs as a training model. Methods A retrospective review of patients seen in our institution’s RRC from January 2020 to September 2024 was performed. Variables included demographics, injectable type and anatomic location, revision rate (overall and by PGY), complication rate, patient retention, and surgical conversion. Results A total of 380 patients (92.1% female, mean age 41) accounted for 1,168 encounters (mean 3.3 visits/patient). Thirty-seven residents participated during the study period. Neuromodulator, filler, and combined treatments comprised 55.3%, 20.9%, and 23.7% of encounters, respectively. Corrugators (91%) and lips (74%) were the most common neuromodulator and filler sites. The overall complication rate was 0.17% (infection and eyebrow ptosis) and revision rate was 5.2%, most commonly due to perceived ineffectiveness (58.7%) or asymmetry (38.1%). Revision rates decreased with advancing PGY (PGY-1: 9.0% vs. PGY-6: 3.0%). Sixty-five percent of patients returned for at least one subsequent visit, and 5.5% later scheduled surgery with a resident or attending. Conclusions Nonsurgical RRCs provide a safe, effective training environment for progressive autonomy in aesthetic injectables while maintaining low complication and revision rates comparable to other practice settings.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Nonsurgical Facial Rejuvenation with Neuromodulators and Soft Tissue Fillers: Evaluating Outcomes of a Longitudinal Resident-Run Clinic

  Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum · 2025-05-01

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract Goals/Purpose Resident-run clinics (RRCs) have emerged as a vital part of aesthetic plastic surgery training. Approximately 60-70% of plastic surgery residency programs have dedicated RRCs, which play a crucial role in enhancing resident cosmetic surgery exposure and autonomy. At certain institutions, RRCs have been developed to increase resident exposure to nonsurgical methods of facial rejuvenation, either as a separate entity or engrained within a resident cosmetic surgery clinic. These clinics have an emphasis on neuromodulators, soft tissue fillers, and at some institutions, lasers and peels. At The University of Utah, a RRC offering resident-administered neuromodulators and soft tissue fillers occurs on a weekly basis, and integrates residents of all years with a focus on graduated autonomy. PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents perform proctored neuromodulator and soft tissue filler injections prior to autonomously participating in the clinic as a PGY-3. These proctored injections often occur at biannual injection training sessions under either chief resident or attending supervision, but may also occur in the RRC. Though similar training models have been described in the literature, outcomes of these clinics have not been consistently described. The purpose of this study is to describe patient demographics, injection characteristics, resident qualities, and outcomes of this longitudinal clinic. Methods/Technique A retrospective chart review of all patients who attended The University of Utah Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery RRC from January 2017 to July 2024 was performed. Patient demographics, type and location of injectable received (neuromodulator vs. soft tissue filler), revision rates, patient retention rates, rates of conversion to cosmetic consultation, and post-graduate year characteristics were then evaluated. Results/Complications A total of 380 patients were identified. The majority of patients were female (92.1%) with a mean age of 41. Of these patients, 42% had never received a neuromodulator or filler injection before, 16% had been injected by another university provider, and 40% had received injections from an outside provider. There was a total of 1,291 patient encounters, with an average of 3.3 visits per patient. A total of 37 residents rotated in the clinic during the study period. Overall, 2.0% of encounters were performed by PGY-1s, 4.7% by PGY-2s, 8.9% by PGY-3s, 15.2% by PGY-4s, 15.9% by PGY-5s, 20.2% by PGY-6s, 17.0% by PGY-7s, and 16.9% by PGY-9s. Neuromodulator injections represented 53.4% of encounters, filler injections represented 23% of encounters, and combined neuromodulator and filler injections represented 23.5% of encounters. The most common neuromodulator injection sites were corrugators and procerus (86.9%), frontalis (87.4%), and orbicularis oculi (66.3%). The most common filler injection sites were the lips (75.5%), nasolabial folds (20.6%), and cheeks (18.1%). There were 72 encounters for revisions, resulting in a 5.5% revision rate. These revisions occurred in patients receiving neuromodulators (47.2%), filler (43%), and neuromodulators and filler combined (8.3%). The most common reason for neuromodulator and filler correction was asymmetry (47.5% and 51.3%). Overall, 272 patients returned to clinic for subsequent injections following their first visit, resulting in a retention rate of 71.5%. A total of 4.2% of patients scheduled a surgical consult with a chief resident, 5% scheduled a surgical consult with an attending, and 5.5% scheduled a consult with an aesthetician following an injection encounter. Overall, the conversion rate from cosmetic injection to surgery was 5.8%. There was a low complication rate overall (0.8%), with 1 incidence of intravascular injection managed with hyaluronidase, 1 incidence of self-limited eyelid ptosis, and 1 incidence of infection that required incision and drainage and antibiotics. Conclusion The RRC was found to integrate residents of all training levels, with an emphasis on residents in year PGY-3 and beyond. The demographics of the patients in this clinic closely reflects what have been described by ASPS nationally for injectable use. Despite the wide range in resident training level, the rate of revision procedures was relatively low (5.5%), as well as complication rates overall (0.8%). Additionally, retention rates were high (71.5%), and the rate of patient conversion to cosmetic surgery was similar to that described in other studies. The RRC was found to be a safe and valuable training tool to provide longitudinal exposure to nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Additionally, this data suggests that RRCs may have similar outcomes and productivity to other cosmetic injection clinics. Additional studies evaluating patient satisfaction, resident satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness may help further evaluate the efficacy of this clinic.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Assessing Patient Preference for Specialty Training When Undergoing Cosmetic Injectables in a Resident Run Clinic

  Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum · 2025-05-01

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract Goals/Purpose Resident-run clinics (RRCs) are an integral component of aesthetic plastic surgery training with 60-70% of plastic surgery residency programs having a dedicated RRC. These clinics offer unique advantages to both patients and residents. For residents, RRCs help enhance procedural autonomy and training within aesthetic surgery with faculty supervision. For patients, cosmetic services are offered at a reduced rate with low complications and a high degree of patient satisfaction. At certain institutions, RRCs have been developed to increase resident exposure to nonsurgical methods of facial rejuvenation, through neuromodulator and soft tissue filler injections, either as a separate entity or engrained within a resident cosmetic surgery clinic. The cosmetic injection landscape is being increasingly widened as practitioners of a variety of training backgrounds (doctors, nurses, advanced practice providers (APPs), aestheticians) and specialties offer these services. Despite this changing landscape, injection experience remains an important part of plastic surgery training, governed by case minimum requirements for graduation. Although there is well-documented support from program directors and residents regarding the effectiveness of RRCs, there is need for further evaluation of these clinics from the patient's perspective, specifically with regard to injector characteristics. The purpose of this study is to assess patient preferences with regards to provider professional background, level in training, and specialty training among patients receiving injections at an RRC. Methods/Technique This study surveyed patients between 2022-2024 who presented to University of Utah’s weekly RRC that offers cosmetic injectables. Patient characteristics such as whether patients had previously undergone cosmetic injections, a history of cosmetic surgery, and prior work experience in the healthcare field were collected. Patients were asked to rank their preference for provider level and type of specialty training. Specialties included Plastic Surgery, Otolaryngology/ENT/Facial Plastics, Ophthalmology/Oculoplastics, Dermatology, Internal Medicine, other residency training, and no residency training. Patients were also asked to rank their preference on the type of medical training their provider has, medical doctor (MD), osteopathic doctor (DO), Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician Assistant (PA), Registered Nurse (RN), or Licensed Aesthetician. Additionally, patients were asked which resident post graduate year (PGY) they preferred to do their injections and the motivating factors for choosing to receive treatments at RRC. Results/Complications A total of 40 patients completed this survey. Of those patients, 80% had previously undergone treatment with a neuromodulator or hyaluronic acid filler, and 35% of patients reported they had a prior history of cosmetic surgery. A majority of patients (62.5%) were aware that providers from specialties other than plastic surgery may offer treatment with injectables. Patients who were also healthcare workers (47.5%) were more likely than patients who had no healthcare background (52.5%) to know that providers other than plastic surgeons offer injectable treatments (89.4% vs. 38.0%). When patients were asked to rank what specialty training patients preferred their injector to have, 94.5% ranked Plastic Surgery as their first preference. The most common second preference ranking was Dermatology (48.6%), followed by Otolaryngology/ENT (48.6%), Ophthalmology/Oculoplastics (48.6%), Internal Medicine (67.5%), other specialty training (100%), and the lowest preference was providers with no specialty training (100%). Patients reported that they preferred their injector to be a MD (100%), followed by a DO (97.5%), PA (55%), NP (52.5%), RN (52.5%), and aesthetician (52.5%). If the provider was an APP, patients first preference of specialty training experience for the NP/PA was in plastic surgery (95%), second preference was dermatology (47.5%), third preference was Otolaryngology/ENT (42.5%), fourth preference Ophthalmology/Oculoplastics (47.5%), fifth preference Internal Medicine (75%), and sixth preference no specialty training (97.5%). With regards to postgraduate year (PGY) level of resident training, patients preferred the most senior residents (PGY-6 and PGY-5) to perform their injections, followed by PGY-4s or PGY 3s, and PGY-2s and PGY-1s. Cost was the primary reason patients sought treatments at the RRC. Conclusion Overall, patients undergoing cosmetic injectables in our cohort had the strongest preference for providers to have a MD or DO degree and formal plastic surgery residency training. When the provider was an APP, they preferred that the APP had prior experience within the field of plastic surgery. At our RRC, all patients preferred having injectables done by residents of the highest postgraduate training year. Low cost was the primary motivator for patients choosing to undergo injections in our resident run clinic; however, some patients felt senior plastic surgery residents may have more frequent experience performing injections compared with plastic surgery attendings. We believe this data will be beneficial for establishing and expanding RRC offering injectables. Nearly half of our patients were not aware that injectables can be offered by providers who may not have formal plastic surgery training, highlighting a significant knowledge gap and area of improvement for patient education, safety, and advocacy.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Association Between Interview Day and Rank Order in Plastic Surgery Match: Is Recency Effect to Blame?

  Journal of surgical education · 2023-06-08 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Landmark Plastic Surgeon Advocacy within the Federal Government: Four Case Studies

  Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2022 · 5 citations

  • Political Science
  • Medicine
  • Public administration

  BACKGROUND: Throughout history, plastic surgeons have advocated for the protection of the specialty and for better care for their patients. Whether through efforts to support and move legislation through Congress or through preventative advocacy in the form of lobbying against legislation, plastic surgeons have often used their expertise in the political sphere to shape patient care. We hope to inspire current and future plastic surgeons to be politically active and to devise ways in which their expertise can be used within the legislative system to better care for their patients. METHODS: This article highlights four historical examples of plastic surgeon-led advocacy within the federal government: the U.S. Flammable Fabrics Act; the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and the Federal Trade Commission, 1979; the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act; and the Breast Cancer Patient Education Act. RESULTS: We hope that plastic surgeons will-like Dr. Crikelair, Dr. Wider, and the members of American Society of Plastic Surgeons/American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons-continue to play an active role in the shaping of the legislative system for our profession and, ultimately, our patients. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure the best care for their patients, plastic surgeons must continue to maintain their relationship with public health and legal professionals and legislators. Through relationships with patients and a firm understanding of their stories, plastic surgeons can have great impacts in all local, state, and national political spheres.

  PublisherDOI

• Smartphone Use for Patient Photography by Plastic Surgery Trainees

  The American Surgeon · 2022 · 5 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Computer Science
  • Medical education
  • Medicine

  Medical photography has become essential to patient care, trainee education, and research in highly visual specialties such as plastic surgery. As smartphone technology advances, plastic surgeons and trainees are using their personal smartphones to take medical photographs prompting ethical and legal concerns about patient consent and privacy. This study aims to determine the prevalence of personal smartphone use for patient photography among plastic surgery trainees, evaluate encryption practices, and establish understanding of current guidelines. Through a survey of 71 plastic surgery trainees throughout the United States, we show that 99% use their personal cell phone to take medical photographs while only 65% use HIPAA-compliant photo storage applications, and only 49% are aware of standard guidelines. This highlights that personal smartphone use among plastic surgery trainees is ubiquitous and there is a need for additional education and access to HIPAA-compliant photo storage applications.

  PublisherDOI

• The confidence gap: Findings for women in plastic surgery

  The American Journal of Surgery · 2020 · 26 citations

  • Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Internal medicine
  PublisherDOI

• Abdominal Contouring and Male Gender

  Annals of Plastic Surgery · 2019-03-14 · 9 citations

  review

  BACKGROUND: Males represent a significant portion of patients undergoing abdominal contouring. Despite this, there are few studies examining the implication of gender on complications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the association between gender and early postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal contouring procedures. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2006-2016) was queried to identify subjects undergoing panniculectomy or abdominoplasty. Minor and major complications were identified. Operative time and length of hospital stay were evaluated. A logistic regression model was used to examine associations between patient gender and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Ten thousand four hundred seventy-three patients were identified. Of these, 4369 underwent abdominoplasties, and 6104 underwent panniculectomies. Males represented a higher percentage of the panniculectomy cohort (15.3% vs 9.2%). Males were older and generally had more comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and elevated body mass index. Males also had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P < 0.001). In the abdominoplasty cohort, male gender is an independent risk factor for any complication (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.45; P < 0.001) and major complications (OR, 1.52; CI, 1.01-2.29; P = 0.043). In the panniculectomy cohort, male gender is also an independent risk factor for any complication (OR, 1.47; CI, 1.24-1.75; P < 0.001) and major complications (OR, 1.43; CI, 1.12-1.83; P < 0.001). Males also had a significantly longer operative times in this cohort (171.3 vs 157.5 minutes; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender is independently associated with minor and major complications in these patient populations. With this knowledge, plastic surgeons may be better able to identify higher-risk individuals and educate patients on their risk profile.

  PublisherDOI

• Abstract: Evaluation of Stem Cell Populations and Cost Effectiveness of Fat Grafting Using Different Minimally Manipulated Techniques

  Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2017-09-01

  articleOpen access

  RATIONALE: Autologous fat grafting is a highly used minimally manipulated technique in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Several fat-processing techniques have been described such as centrifugation, Telfa-rolling, blue-towel, sieve and decanting method. Although studies have compared processing methods, no studies have evaluated the processing time, cost and stem cell potency of the different methods. OBJECTIVE: Here we describe a study where we compare the volume of fat obtained, processing time, cost, degree of cell viability and adipose derived stem cell (ADSC) potency of adipose tissue processed using several minimally manipulated fat-processing techniques adipose tissue. METHODS: Human adipose tissue was harvested via tumescent liposuction technique and processed using centrifugation, Telfa-rolling, blue-towel, sieve and decanting methods. Processed tissue was placed into culture using ADSC cell culture methods to allow cells to grow. Cells were tested for doubling times, cell surface marker analysis and differentiation potential. In addition, we assess volume and mass of fat obtained through each individual technique. CONCLUSION: All methods resulted in the isolation of adipose derived stem cells capable of undergoing adipo-, osteo- and chondrogenesis. Telfa-rolling and centrifuge methods resulted in the highest number of cells immediately after processing, and reached a cell density of 20 x106 within 6 days of tissue processing. In addition, it was found that volume of processed fat obtained through telfa technique was approximately 33–50%, with only centrifuge and decanting resulting in greater volumes. Telfa-rolling is the most cost effective minimally manipulated method of processing adipose tissue that results in the highest ADSC isolation. This study supports larger clinical studies to evaluate the clinical benefits of using the Telfa-rolling method as the preferred minimally manipulated technique used in fat grafting.

  PublisherDOI

• Evaluation of stem cell populations isolated from adipose tissue using minimally manipulated techniques

  Cytotherapy · 2015-04-27

  article
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Jared Garlick

  University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

  11 shared

• Daniel P. Donato

  9 shared

• Alvin C. Kwok

  University of Utah

  9 shared

• Andrew Simpson

  9 shared

• Jayant Agarwal

  University of Utah

  9 shared

• Sagar T. Mehta

  University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

  5 shared

• Francisco Silva

  4 shared

• A. P. Patel

  Anand Agricultural University

  4 shared