The recent Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in Denver leads me to wonder about our professional association and its place in an age of contraction. First, the booths seemed a bit smaller in general. Many companies apparently either contracted or simply chose to not attend this meeting. Perhaps that's because Denver is not relevant in the minds of the coast-centric dermatologists and the companies that serve them. Alternatively, much can be blamed on the weather worriers who predicted woe and snow (there was no significant snowfall, though there was a small dusting one day). Finally, my perception of the meeting could be the result of companies being in the midst of widespread and serious changes, including purchases and mergers of companies in the past year or two. Many smaller companies have disappeared or become part of larger companies. Some companies have struggled on, yet with challenges that seem greater in the face of unequal competition.

As a result, the atmosphere seemed somewhat more subdued this year, with reduced attendance at both meetings and parties. Again, this could have been due to the overall attendance numbers, but it also seemed that in the face of less competition and more pharma regulations, companies were more muted.

Next year, we will once again be in a ‘standard' venue— San Francisco—and it will be interesting to see if the tone is different and attendance picks up. I hope this will happen, since these meetings are our only chance to be together and learn from each other.

I should note, however, that my personal view of Denver was that it was a wonderful location and a refreshing change from our usual meeting places. The convention center was also excellent and was surrounded by a wealth of good hotels and restaurants.

Overall, there didn't seem to be much ‘new' in the field this year other than:

• A plenary session that seemed tilted toward Pharma more than I have seen in the past;
• Neotensil, the potential new ‘spanx' for eyes;
• Juvéderm Voluma, which lasts up to 24 months;
• More non-invasive fat devices than ever before;
• Fewer cosmeceutical companies (Interpretation: purchased by Allergan, Valeant, and Merz!);
• A few new upstarts (with Alphaeon, Kythera, and Revance the seemingly most relevant);
• More non-dermatologists on the floor, including plastic surgeons, facial plastics, and oculoplastics, who seem to identify with and like our specialty (possibly more than their own!);
• More EMR wars: Will there be a victor between the companies that want us to trust them with our records?

In any case, I came away, as always, exceedingly proud of our specialty and the incredibly talented folks in it. I welcome your thoughts on this AAD meeting and any observations you might have at js@CosmeticSurgeryForum.com.

—Joel Schlessinger, MD, FAAD

Chief Cosmetic Surgery Editor