Background

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted drastic changes to residency recruitment. The majority of general surgery residency interviews for the 2020-2021 interview cycle were restructured into a virtual format. The goal of this study is to evaluate general surgery residency applicants' perception of virtual interviews.

Methods

A secure, anonymous, web-based survey was developed, tested, and distributed via email to all candidates who applied to the University of California Irvine general surgery residency program for Match 2021.

Results

1239 general surgery applicants were invited after Match Day 2021 to take the survey, and 167 (13.5%) completed the survey and were included in the final analysis. Applicants received and accepted a median of 10 (Interquartile range [IQR], 5-18) and 9 (IQR, 5-15) interviews. Using a Likert scale, candidates revealed they were most satisfied with introduction and program overview (72.5%) and interactions with faculty (70.6%). Applicants were dissatisfied with pre-interview socials (66.9%) and hospital tours (66.2%). When evaluating programs, they had the most difficulty discerning program culture and resident autonomy. Most applicants (54%) were satisfied with the virtual format and 52% believed that virtual format should continue.

Discussion

The majority of applicants were satisfied with virtual interviews and could foresee the format continuing in the future.

Background

There are limited available data comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for rectal cancer surgery.

Objective

We sought to investigate outcomes of different surgical approaches to abdominoperineal resection in patients with rectal cancer.

Design

The nationwide inpatient sample database was used to examine the clinical data of patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection between 2009 and 2012 in the United States. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare outcomes of different surgical approaches.

Settings

A retrospective review according to the national inpatient sample database was designed.

Patients

We included patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection between 2009 and 2012.

Main outcome measures

Outcomes of different surgical approaches to abdominoperineal resection were investigated.

Results

We sampled 18,359 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective abdominoperineal resections. Of these, 69.5% had open surgery, 25.8% had laparoscopic surgery, and 4.7% had robotic surgery. The rate of robotic procedures increased >4-fold, from 2.1% to 8.1%, from 2009 to 2012. The conversion rate in robotic surgery was significantly lower compared with laparoscopic surgery (5.7% vs 13.4%; p < 0.01). After risk adjustment, patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic approaches had lower morbidity risks compared with those who underwent the open approach (adjusted OR = 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40-0.80); p < 0. 01). There were no significant differences in the morbidity rate of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic approaches (adjusted OR = 0.79 (95% CI, 0.55-1.14); p = 0.21). However, patients who underwent the robotic approach had significantly higher total hospital charges compared with those who underwent the laparoscopic approach (mean difference, $24,890; p < 0.01).

Limitations

We could not adjust the results with some important factors, such as the tumor stage and BMI.

Conclusions

The use of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to abdominoperineal resection have increased between 2009 and 2012. Both minimally invasive approaches decrease morbidity rates of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection. The robotic approach has a significantly lower conversion rate compared with the laparoscopic approach. However, it had significantly higher total hospital charges compared with the laparoscopic approach.

Background

In March 2020, the Surgeon General recommended limiting elective procedures to prepare for the COVID-19 surge. We hypothesize a consequence of COVID-19 is reduced operative volume across the country. We aim to examine changes in volume of common gastrointestinal operations during COVID-19, including elective, urgent/emergent, and cancer operations. We also evaluate if hospitals with more COVID-19 admissions were most impacted.

Methods

The Vizient database was used to determine monthly operative volume from November 2019 to June 2020 for elective operations (hiatal hernia repairs, bariatric surgery), urgent operations (cholecystectomies, appendectomies, inguinal hernia repairs), and cancer operations (colectomies, gastrectomies, esophagectomies). COVID-19 admissions per hospital were also determined. November 2019-January 2020 was defined as "pre-COVID." The monthly reduction in volume from pre-COVID was calculated for each operation. The top quartile (25%) of hospitals with the most COVID admissions were also evaluated separately from hospitals with fewer COVID cases. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance.

Results

Data from 559 hospitals were analyzed. The volumes of all operations evaluated were significantly reduced during the pandemic except gastrectomies and esophagectomies for cancer. The greatest reduction in all operations was in April. In April, the volume of bariatric surgery reduced by 98% (P < 0.001), hiatal hernia repairs by 96% (P < 0.001), urgent cholecystectomies by 42% (P < 0.001), urgent inguinal hernia repairs by 40% (P < 0.001), urgent appendectomies by 24% (P < 0.001), and colectomies for cancer by 39% (P < 0.001). Hospitals with the most COVID-19 admissions had greater reductions in all operations than hospitals with fewer COVID cases.

Conclusions

The coronavirus pandemic led to a significant reduction in volume of all gastrointestinal operations evaluated except gastrectomies and esophagectomies. While elective, non-cancer operations were most affected, urgent and some cancer operations also declined significantly. As COVID-19 continues to surge, Americans may suffer continued limited access to surgical care and a significant operative backlog may be forthcoming.

Obesity has been linked with a chronic state of inflammation which may be involved in the development of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and even cancer. The objective of this study was to examine the association between obesity class and levels of inflammatory biomarkers from men and women who participated in the 1999–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Serum concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) and fibrinogen were measured among US participants of the 1999–2004 NHANES. We examined biomarker levels across different weight classes with normal weight, overweight, and obesity classes 1, 2, and 3 were defined as BMI of <25.0, 25.0–29.9, 30.0–34.9, 35.0–39.9, and ≥40.0, respectively. With CRP levels for normal weight individuals as a reference, CRP levels nearly doubled with each increase in weight class: +0.11 mg/dl (95% CI, 0.06–0.16) for overweight, +0.21 mg/dl (95% CI, 0.16–0.27) for obesity class 1, +0.43 mg/dl (95% CI, 0.26–0.61) for obesity class 2, and +0.73 mg/dl (95% CI, 0.55–0.90) for obesity class 3. With normal weight individuals as a reference, fibrinogen levels increase with increasing weight class and were highest for obesity class 3 individuals, +93.5 mg/dl (95% CI, 72.9–114.1). Individuals with hypertension or diabetes have higher levels of CRP and fibrinogen levels compared to individuals without hypertension or diabetes, even when stratified according to BMI. There is a direct association between increasing obesity class and the presence of obesity-related comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension with high levels of inflammatory biomarkers.

In patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) contributes to perioperative morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the utilization and outcome of severely obese patients with MetS who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Using the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, data were obtained for patients with MetS undergoing LSG or LRYGB. There were 29,588 MetS patients (LSG: 58.7% vs LRYGB: 41.3%). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (0.1% for LSG vs 0.2% for LRYGB, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.58, confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.05, P = 0.07) or length of stay between groups (2 ± 2 for LSG vs 2.2 ± 2 days for LRYGB, P = 0.40). Compared with LRYGB, LSG was associated with significantly shorter operative time (78 ± 39 vs 122 ± 54 minutes, P < 0.01), lower overall morbidity (2.3% vs 4.4%, AOR 0.53, CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.01), lower serious morbidity (1.5% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.64, CI 0.53-0.76, P < 0.01), lower 30-day reoperation (1.2% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.52, CI 0.43-0.63, P < 0.01), and lower 30-day readmission (4.2% vs 6.6%, AOR 0.62, CI 0.55-0.69, P < 0.01). In conclusion, LSG is the predominant operation being performed for severely obese patients with MetS, and its popularity may in part be related to its improved perioperative safety profile.

Background

The relationship between volume and outcomes in bariatric surgery is well established in the literature. However, the analyses were performed primarily in the open surgery era and in the absence of national accreditation. The recent Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program proposed an annual threshold volume of 50 stapling cases. This study aimed to examine the effect of volume and accreditation on surgical outcomes for bariatric surgery in this laparoscopic era.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used for analysis of the outcomes experienced by morbidly obese patients who underwent an elective laparoscopic stapling bariatric surgical procedure between 2006 and 2010. In this analysis, low-volume centers (LVC < 50 stapling cases/year) were compared with high-volume centers (HVC ≥ 50 stapling cases/year). Multivariate analysis was performed to examine risk-adjusted serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality between the LVCs and HVCs. Additionally, within the HVC group, risk-adjusted outcomes of accredited versus nonaccredited centers were examined.

Results

Between 2006 and 2010, 277,760 laparoscopic stapling bariatric procedures were performed, with 85% of the cases managed at HVCs. The mean number of laparoscopic stapling cases managed per year was 17 ± 14 at LVCs and 144 ± 117 at HVCs. The in-hospital mortality was higher at LVCs (0.17%) than at HVCs (0.07%). Multivariate analysis showed that laparoscopic stapling procedures performed at LVCs had higher rates of mortality than those performed at HVCs [odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-4.8; p < 0.01] as well as higher rates of serious morbidity (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.4; p < 0.01). The in-hospital mortality rate at nonaccredited HVCs was 0.22% compared with 0.06% at accredited HVCs. Multivariate analysis showed that nonaccredited centers had higher rates of mortality than accredited centers (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.5-8.3; p < 0.01) but lower rates of serious morbidity (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7-0.9; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

In this era of laparoscopy, hospitals managing more than 50 laparoscopic stapling cases per year have improved outcomes. However, nonaccredited HVCs have outcomes similar to those of LVCs. Therefore, the impact of accreditation on outcomes may be greater than that of volume.

Background

There is a controversy regarding the best urgent surgical treatment of colonic diverticulitis. We sought to compare outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for diverticulitis by the type of admission.

Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases were used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent colorectal resection for diverticulitis during 2012 to 2013. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify outcomes of patients.

Results

We sampled a total of 13,510 patients admitted for diverticulitis who underwent colorectal resection, of which 7.8% had emergent and 19.7% had urgent operation. Patients with perforation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 188.56, P < .01) and preoperative sepsis (AOR 28.17, P < .01) had significantly higher rates of emergent surgery. Patients who underwent emergent operation had higher mortality (AOR 4.08, P = .04) and morbidity (AOR 2.14, P < .01). Emergent operations had a significantly higher risk of anastomosis leakage compared with elective operation (AOR 3.92, P = .02).

Conclusions

Emergent treatment of diverticulitis is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. In the setting of emergent treatment of diverticulitis, colonic anastomosis without a stoma has a high risk of anastomosis leakage.

Objective

To examine the trends and outcomes of partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis compared with total esophagectomy with a cervical anastomosis.

Background

Controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical approach in the management of esophageal cancer.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, yearly trends of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent partial and total esophagectomy were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality between partial and total esophagectomy. In addition, outcomes were analyzed according to hospital volume, with low-volume centers defined as those with fewer than 10 cases per year and high-volume centers as those with 10 or more cases per year.

Results

Between 2001 and 2010, 15,190 esophagectomies were performed for cancer. There was an overall increase in the number of esophagectomy procedures performed (1402 to 1975), with a concomitant reduction in the mortality rate (8.3% to 4.2%), particularly for partial esophagectomy. Partial esophagectomy was the predominant operation (76%). Most operations were performed at low-volume centers (62%), with a recent shift of cases to high-volume center. Compared with total esophagectomy, partial esophagectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (16 ± 6 vs 19 ± 9 days; P < 0.05), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (5.8% vs 8.3%; P < 0.05), and a lower hospital charge ($119,339 vs $138,496; P < 0.05). On multivariate regression analysis, total esophagectomy was associated with higher serious morbidity (odds ratio, 1.39; P < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.67; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted outcomes between low-volume centers and high-volume center.

Conclusions

The number of esophagectomies performed for esophageal cancer has increased over the past decade accompanied by an overall reduction in mortality, particularly for the partial esophagectomy approach. The predominant operation in the United States continues to be partial esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis, which was associated with lower morbidity and in-hospital mortality than total esophagectomy. Hospital volume at a threshold of 10 cases per year was not a predictor of outcome.

Importance:Surgical and medical device manufacturers have a cooperative relationship with clinicians. When evaluating published works, one should assess the integrity and academic credentials of the authors, who serve as putative experts. A relationship with a relevant manufacturer may increase the potential risk for bias in relevant studies. Objective:To characterize the association of industrial payments by device manufacturers, self-declared conflict of interest (COI), and relevance of publications among physicians receiving the highest compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants:This population-based bibliometric analysis identified 10 surgical and medical device manufacturing companies and the 10 physicians receiving the highest compensation from each company using the 2015 Open Payments Database (OPD) general payments data. For each of the 100 physicians, the total amount of general payments, number of payments, institution type, and academic rank were recorded. Royalty or license payments were excluded. A search of PubMed identified articles published by each physician from January 1 through December 31, 2016, and their associated COI declaration. Scopus was used to identify bibliometric data reported as the h index (number of papers by a researcher with at least h citations each). Main Outcomes and Measures:Discrepancy between self-declared COI and industry payments. Results:The 100 physicians included in the sample population (88% men) were paid a total of $12 446 969, with a median payment of $95 993. Fifty physicians (50.0%) were faculty at academic institutions. The mean (SD) h index was 18 (18; range, 0-75) for the authors. In 2016, 412 articles were published by these physicians, with a mean (SD) of 4 (6) publications (range, 0-25) and median of 1 (36 physicians had no publications). Of these articles, 225 (54.6%) were relevant to the general payments received by the authors. Only in 84 of the 225 relevant publications (37.3%) was the potential COI declared by the authors. Conclusions and Relevance:A high level of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and the OPD among the physicians receiving the highest industry payments. Therefore, a policy of full disclosure for all publications, regardless of relevance, is proposed. No statistically significant association was demonstrated between academic rank or productivity and industrial payments.