New persistent opioid use following robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery inguinal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Post-operative prescription opioid use is a known risk factor for persistent opioid use. Despite the increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for inguinal hernia repair (IHR), little is known whether this minimally invasive approach results in less opioid consumption. In this study, we compare long-term opioid use between RAS versus laparoscopic (Lap) versus open surgery for IHR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of opioid-naïve patients who underwent outpatient primary IHR was conducted using the Merative™ MarketScan® (Previously IBM MarketScan®) Databases between 2016 and 2020. Patients not continuously enrolled 180 days before/after surgery, who had malignancy, pre-existing chronic pain, opioid dependency, or invalid prescription fill information were excluded. Among patients exposed to opioids peri-operatively, we assessed long-term opioid use as any opioid prescription fill within 90 to 180 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were controlled substance schedule II/III opioid fill, and high-dose opioid fill defined as > 50 morphine milligram equivalent per day. An Inverse-probability of treatment weighted logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between groups with p-value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 41,271 patients were identified (2070 (5.0%) RAS, 16,704 (40.5%) Lap, and 22,497 (54.5%) open surgery). RAS was associated with less likelihood of prescription fills for any opioid (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98 versus Lap; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85 versus open), and schedule II/III opioid (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96 versus Lap; OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.88 versus open), but comparable high-dose opioid fill (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.55 versus Lap; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.52 versus open). Lap and open surgery had no significant difference. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients derived from a national commercial claims dataset, patients undergoing RAS had a decreased risk of long-term opioid use compared to laparoscopic and open surgery patients undergoing IHR.

Thirty day outcomes for laparoscopic versus robotic sleeve gastrectomy: Does the stapler matter?

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remains a safe and effective treatment for severe obesity. The number of robotic SG (RSG) has steadily increased from 2015 to 2021. Prior studies have shown higher rates of some adverse outcomes with RSG but have not accounted for staplers used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes for RSG compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), accounting for stapler type used. SETTING: National hospital derived administrative data. METHODS: The PINC AI Healthcare Database was used for the current study. Analyzed cohort included elective LSG or RSG performed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. Patient, hospital, billing, provider, insurance, and operative data were captured. Bleeding, leak, and other outcomes were identified by ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. Propensity score matching (PSM) compared outcomes between RSG with SureForm stapler vs. LSG with powered stapler. RESULTS: 56,013 LSG and 13,832 RSG were analyzed. RSG increased from 15 % in 2019 to 25 % in 2021 with an absolute 27 â€‹% increase in robotic stapler utilization for RSG. PSM analysis compared, 5434 RSG with SureForm Stapler vs. 5434 LSG with powered staplers showed equivalent complication rates, shorter LOS, but longer operative time with RSG. CONCLUSIONS: When stapler type used is accounted for, patient outcomes following RSG and LSG are equivalent.

New-Onset Type 2 Diabetes after Bariatric Surgery: A Matched Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to determine the difference in rates of new-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D) for individuals who have had metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) and similar individuals who did not have MBS, and to determine whether differences in new-onset T2D differ depending on whether the individual had prediabetes at baseline. METHODS: This study used data from a large United States employer-based retrospective claims database from 2016 to 2021 (analysis completed in 2023). Individuals who did and did not have MBS were matched 1:1 on index year, sex, age, health plan type, region, body mass index, baseline healthcare costs, other obesity-related comorbidities, prediabetes diagnosis, and inpatient admissions in the year before the index date. New-onset T2D was examined at 1 (18,752 matches) and 3 (5,416 matches) years after the index date and stratified by baseline prediabetes. RESULTS: Among the full cohort of individuals with and without prediabetes at baseline, 0.1% and 2.7% of individuals who had did and did not have MBS developed T2D within 1 year after the index date, respectively (difference=2.6, 95% CI 2.4-2.8), and 0.3% and 8.4% of individuals who did and did not have MBS developed T2D within 3 years after the index date, respectively (difference=8.1, 95% CI 7.3-8.8). The difference in new-onset T2D was greatest among individuals with prediabetes at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated patients with obesity and without T2D who undergo MBS are significantly less likely to develop new-onset T2D compared to matched non-MBS patients.

Antihypertensive Medication Use Trajectories After Bariatric Surgery: A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective and durable treatment for obesity. We aimed to compare the trajectories of antihypertensive medication (AHM) use among obese individuals treated and not treated with MBS. METHODS: Adults with a body mass index of ≥35 kg/m2 were identified in the Merative Database (US employer-based claims database). Individuals treated with versus without MBS were matched 1:1 using baseline demographic and clinical characteristics as well as AHM utilization. Monthly AHM use was examined in the 3 years after the index date using generalized estimating equations. Subanalyses investigated rates of AHM discontinuation, AHM initiation, and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. RESULTS: The primary cohort included 43 206 adults who underwent MBS matched with 43 206 who did not. Compared with no MBS, those treated with MBS had sustained, markedly lower rates of AHM use (31% versus 15% at 12 months; 32% versus 17% at 36 months). Among patients on AHM at baseline, 42% of patients treated with MBS versus 7% treated medically discontinued AHM use (P<0.01). The risk of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension was 3.41× higher (95% CI, 2.91-4.01; P<0.01) 2 years after the index date in patients who did not undergo MBS. Among those without hypertension treated with MBS versus no MBS, 7% versus 21% required AHM at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: MBS is associated with lower rates of AHM use, higher rates of AHM discontinuation, and lower rates of AHM initiation among patients not taking AHM. These findings suggest that MBS is both an effective treatment and a preventative measure for hypertension.

Out-of-Pocket Costs among Commercially Insured Individuals with type 2 Diabetes and Obesity: Comparison between Ozempic and Sleeve Gastrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Determine out-of-pocket (OOP) costs two years after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or initiating Ozempic for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Individuals with obesity and T2D have a variety of treatment options. Risks and benefits of these treatment options are becoming more well documented; however, the real-world patient costs of these options are not known. METHODS: Adults with body mass index (BMI) 35 kg/m2 or higher, and T2D who had an SG or used Ozempic were identified in the employer-based retrospective claims database Merative™ (previously Truven IBM Marketscan) from 2017 to 2021. SG cohort was defined as having a SG (without filling a prescription for Ozempic) and Ozempic cohort was defined as continuously filling a prescription for Ozempic for at least 2 years (and not having any bariatric surgery). Individuals in each cohort were 1:1 propensity matched on demographics, obesity-related comorbidities, and baseline OOP costs. in the year before treatment. OOP costs were compared in the two years after treatment using paired t-tests. RESULTS: 302 SG were matched to 302 Ozempic patients (mean age 50, mean baseline BMI 40, 41% male). OOP healthcare costs were similar for the SG ($2,267) and Ozempic ($2,131) cohorts 1-year after index date (difference=$136, P=0.19). OOP healthcare costs were significantly lower in the SG cohort ($1,155 vs. $2,084, P<0.01) 2-years after index date. CONCLUSIONS: Within 2 years of starting treatment, OOP healthcare costs were significantly lower among individuals who had a SG versus those treated with Ozempic.

Equity in bariatric surgery use: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective and durable treatment for obesity; however, access to MBS is not equitable. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of MBS among eligible adults with obesity by demographics, health characteristics, and geography to better define populations that would benefit from resources to reduce barriers to access for this treatment. SETTING: Adults with obesity were identified in the US employer-based retrospective claims database (Merative™). METHODS: Rates of MBS were examined across demographics (age, sex, region, year, health plan type) health characteristics (obesity-related comorbidities, healthcare costs, inpatient admissions), and by state. Given differences in coverage requirements, rates are examined for 2 populations: Class 2 (BMI 35-39.9 kg/m2) and Class 3 (BMI 40+ kg/m2) obesity. RESULTS: Of the 777,565 eligible adults, 49,371 (6.4%) had MBS; 3.2% of those with Class 2 and 8.3% of those with Class 3 obesity had MBS. MBS rates varied substantially by demographic and health characteristics, ranging from 1% to 14%, and from 2% to 41% among those with Class 2 and Class 3 obesity, respectively. Geographically, rates ranged from 0% (Hawaii) to 7.4% (New Mexico) for those with Class 2 Obesity and from 4.2% (Hawaii) to 15.3% (Mississippi) among those with Class 3 Obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Use of MBS among eligible adults with obesity varies substantially across characteristics, indicating inequity in access to this treatment. To ensure greater access to the most effective treatment for obesity, policies should be implemented to reduce or eliminate barriers to care.

Observational cohort investigating health outcomes and healthcare costs after metabolic and bariatric surgery: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As the rate of obesity increases, so does the incidence of obesity-related comorbidities. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective treatment for obesity, yet this treatment is severely underused. MBS can improve, resolve, and prevent the development of obesity-related comorbidities; this improvement in health also results in lower healthcare costs. The studies that have examined these outcomes are often limited by small sample sizes, reliance on outdated data, inconsistent definitions of outcomes, and the use of simulated data. Using recent real-world data, we will identify characteristics of individuals who qualify for MBS but have not had MBS and address the gaps in knowledge around the impact of MBS on health outcomes and healthcare costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a large US employer-based retrospective claims database (Merative), we will identify all obese adults (21+) who have had a primary MBS from 2016 to 2021 and compare their characteristics and outcomes with obese adults who did not have an MBS from 2016 to 2021. Baseline demographics, health outcomes, and costs will be examined in the year before the index date, remission and new-onset comorbidities, and healthcare costs will be examined at 1 and 3 years after the index date. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this was an observational study of deidentified patients in the Merative database, Institutional Review Board approval and consent were exempt (in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule). An IRB exemption was approved by the wcg IRB (#13931684). Knowledge dissemination will include presenting results at national and international conferences, sharing findings with specialty societies, and publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. All data management and analytic code will be made available publicly to enable others to leverage our methods to verify and extend our findings.

Objectively measured cognitive dysfunction in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism improves after parathyroidectomy.

BACKGROUND: A relationship between primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) and decreased quality of life has been shown using patient-reported outcome measures, including Pasieka's Parathyroid Assessment of Symptoms, SF-36, and PROMIS. Despite this, there remains a paucity of objectively measured data demonstrating cognitive dysfunction in patients with PHPT. We assessed whether parathyroidectomy resulted in quantifiable cognitive improvement. METHODS: We examined 59 consecutive patients with PHPT who underwent parathyroidectomy at a single institution between 2019 and 2021. We used BrainCheck, a clinically validated objective measure of neurocognition, to assess pre- and postoperative neurocognitive changes and evaluated associations between BrainCheck scores and parathyroidectomy using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Of the 59 patients with PHPT who underwent parathyroidectomy and rapid cognitive assessment with BrainCheck, 72.9% were female, 49.2% were White, and 30.5% were African American. A total of 44.1% of patients preoperatively showed neurocognitive dysfunction relative to the general population compared to 22% postoperatively, representing an improvement in 53% of the cohort. Postoperative scores for the entire cohort were significantly higher than preoperative scores (Z =2.85, P = .004). This association remained significant when the cohort was stratified by sex, as both males (Z =2.02, P = .044) and females (Z =2.09, P = .037) had a significant increase in scores. Domain sub-analysis demonstrated a significant association between parathyroidectomy and improved executive function (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients with PHPT experience objectively measurable cognitive changes associated with PHPT that can be reversed by parathyroidectomy, with improvements observed as early as 2 weeks after surgery. Further research with a larger cohort is needed to corroborate our findings.

Type 2 Diabetes Remission After Bariatric Surgery and Its Impact on Healthcare Costs.

PURPOSE: Bariatric surgery is the most effective and durable treatment of obesity and can put type 2 diabetes (T2D) into remission. We aimed to examine remission rates after bariatric surgery and the impacts of post-surgical healthcare costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Obese adults with T2D were identified in Merative™ (US employer-based retrospective claims database). Individuals who had bariatric surgery were matched 1:1 with those who did not with baseline demographic and health characteristics. Rates of remission and total healthcare costs were compared at 6-12 and 6-36 months after the index date. RESULTS: Remission rates varied substantially by baseline T2D complexity; differences in rates at 1 year ranged from 41% for those with high-complexity T2D to 66% for those with low- to mid-complexity T2D. At 3 years, those who had bariatric surgery had 56% higher remission rates than those who did not have bariatric surgery, with differences of 73%, 59%, and 35% for those with low-, mid-, and high-complexity T2D at baseline. Healthcare costs were $3401 and $20,378 lower among those who had bariatric surgery in the 6 to 12 months and 6 to 36 months after the index date, respectively, than their matched controls. The biggest cost differences were seen among those with high-complexity T2D; those who had bariatric surgery had $26,879 lower healthcare costs in the 6 to 36 months after the index date than those who did not. CONCLUSION: Individuals with T2D undergoing bariatric surgery have substantially higher rates of T2D remission and lower healthcare costs.

CUSUM learning curves: what they can and can't tell us.

INTRODUCTION: There has been increased interest in assessing the surgeon learning curve for new skill acquisition. While there is no consensus around the best methodology, one of the most frequently used learning curve assessments in the surgical literature is the cumulative sum curve (CUSUM) of operative time. To demonstrate the limitations of this methodology, we assessed the CUSUM of console time across cohorts of surgeons with differing case acquisition rates while varying the total number of cases used to calculate the CUSUM. METHODS: We compared the CUSUM curves of the average console times of surgeons who completed their first 20 robotic-assisted (RAS) cases in 13, 26, 39, and 52 weeks, respectively, for their first 50 and 100 cases, respectively. This analysis was performed for prostatectomy (1094 surgeons), malignant hysterectomy (737 surgeons), and inguinal hernia (1486 surgeons). RESULTS: In all procedures, the CUSUM curve of the cohort of surgeons who completed their first 20 procedures in 13 weeks demonstrated a lower slope than cohorts of surgeons with slower case acquisition rates. The case number at which the peak of the CUSUM curve occurs uniformly increases when the total number of cases used in generation of the CUSUM chart changes from 50 to 100 cases. CONCLUSION: The CUSUM analyses of these three procedures suggests that surgeons with fast initial case acquisition rates have less variability in their operative times over the course of their learning curve. The peak of the CUSUM curve, which is often used in surgical learning curve literature to denote "proficiency" is predictably influenced by the total number of procedures evaluated, suggesting that defining the peak as the point at which a surgeon has overcome the learning curve is subject to routine bias. The CUSUM peak, by itself, is an insufficient measure of "conquering the learning curve."

Limited disease progression in endocrine surgery patients with treatment delays due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the delivery of care and timing of elective surgical procedures. Most endocrine-related operations were considered elective and safe to postpone, providing a unique opportunity to assess clinical outcomes under protracted treatment plans. METHODS: American Association of Endocrine Surgeon members were surveyed for participation. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was developed and distributed to 27 institutions to assess the impact of COVID-19-related delays. The information collected included patient demographics, primary diagnosis, resumption of care, and assessment of disease progression by the surgeon. RESULTS: Twelve out of 27 institutions completed the survey (44.4%). Of 850 patients, 74.8% (636) were female; median age was 56 (interquartile range, 44-66) years. Forty percent (34) of patients had not been seen since their original surgical appointment was delayed; 86.2% (733) of patients had a delay in care with women more likely to have a delay (87.6% vs 82.2% of men, χ2 = 3.84, P = .05). Median duration of delay was 70 (interquartile range, 42-118) days. Among patients with a delay in care, primary disease site included thyroid (54.2%), parathyroid (37.2%), adrenal (6.5%), and pancreatic/gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (1.3%). In addition, 4.0% (26) of patients experienced disease progression and 4.1% (24) had a change from the initial operative plan. The duration of delay was not associated with disease progression (P = .96) or a change in operative plan (P = .66). CONCLUSION: Although some patients experienced disease progression during COVID-19 delays to endocrine disease-related care, most patients with follow-up did not. Our analysis indicated that temporary delay may be an acceptable course of action in extreme circumstances for most endocrine-related surgical disease.

Optimization of Opioid Discharge Prescriptions Following Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a quality improvement bundle on opioid discharge prescribing following thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy. METHODS: This before-and-after study included patients undergoing thyroidectomy or parathyroidectomy at an academic medical center. The quality improvement bundle included a patient education flyer, electronic health record order sets with multimodal analgesia regimens, and provider education. The preimplementation cohort included patients treated from January 2018 to December 2019. The postimplementation cohort included patients treated from June 2021 to August 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received new opioid discharge prescriptions. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were included in the preimplementation cohort, and the first 80 patients treated after bundle implementation were included in the postimplementation cohort. Patients receiving new opioid discharge prescriptions decreased from 80% (128/160) in the preimplementation cohort to 35% (28/80) in the postimplementation cohort with an unadjusted absolute reduction of 45% (95% CI, 33%-57%; P < .001; number needed to treat = 3) and an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.19; P < .001). The bundle was associated with reductions in opioid discharge prescriptions that exceeded 112.5 oral morphine milligram equivalents (33% pre- vs 10% postimplementation; adjusted OR, 0.20; P = .001) or 5 days of therapy (17% pre- vs 6% postimplementation; adjusted OR, 0.34; P = .049). DISCUSSION: Implementation of a pain management quality improvement bundle reduced opioid discharge prescribing following thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Unnecessary opioid prescriptions generate unused opioids in patients' homes that can lead to opioid misuse. We believe that this bundle reduced the risk for opioid misuse in our community. REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04955444) before implementation.

Enhancing Patient-Centered Surgical Care With Mobile Health Technology.

From smartphones or wearables to portable physiologic sensors and apps, healthcare is witnessing an exponential growth in mHealth-digital health tools used to support medical and surgical care, as well as public health. In surgery, there is interest in harnessing the capabilities of mHealth to improve the quality of patient-centered care delivery. Digitally delivered surveys have enhanced patient-reported outcome measurement and patient engagement throughout care. Wearable devices and sensors have allowed for the assessment of physical fitness before surgery and during recovery. Smartphone-based digital phenotyping has introduced novel methods of integrating multiple data streams (accelerometer, global positioning system, call and text logs) to create multidimensional digital health footprints for patients following surgery. Yet, with all the technological sophistication and 'big data' mHealth provides, widespread implementation has been elusive. Do clinicians and patients find these data valuable or clinically actionable? How can mHealth become integrated into the day-to-day workflows of surgical systems? Do these data represent opportunities to address disparities of care or worsen them? In this review, we discuss experiences and future opportunities to use mHealth to enhance patient-centered surgical care.

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Patients Undergoing Thyroid Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine out-of-pocket costs (OOPC) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy for benign and malignant conditions in a commercially insured US population. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about OOPC for thyroid surgery in the United States. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using claims of patients undergoing thyroidectomy from the IBM Watson Marketscan database from 2008 to 2017. OOPCs accrued from 90 days before surgery to 360 days after thyroid surgery were quantified. Costs were divided into expenditures for inpatient care, outpatient care and outpatient drug costs and over three time periods: from 90 days preoperatively to 30 days post operatively, from 30 days post operatively to 90 days postoperatively, and from 90 days to 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 45,971 commercially insured patients aged 18 to 95 years who underwent thyroidectomy were identified after excluding patients who changed coverage and patients on capitated plans. The median OOPC per patient in the study period of 90 days before surgery to 360 days after surgery was $2434 [interquartile range (IQR) $1273-$4226], the median insurance reimbursement was $15,520 (IQR $7653-$29,149). Patients undergoing thyroidectomy for malignant conditions had a median OOPC of $3019 (IQR $1596-$5021) compared to $2271 (IQR $1201-3954) for benign conditions ( P < 0.0001).Patients with preferred provider organization coverage had a median OOPC of $2624 (IQR $1458-$4358) compared to HMO patients with a median OOPC of $1529 (IQR $739 to 3058), and high deductible health plans with a median OOPC of $4265 (IQR $2788-$6210) ( P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Despite commercial insurance coverage, patients face substantial OOPCs in the surgical management of thyroid disease in the United States.

Artificial intelligence-augmented, label-free molecular imaging method for tissue identification, cancer diagnosis, and cancer margin detection.

Label-free high-resolution molecular and cellular imaging strategies for intraoperative use are much needed, but not yet available. To fill this void, we developed an artificial intelligence-augmented molecular vibrational imaging method that integrates label-free and subcellular-resolution coherent anti-stokes Raman scattering (CARS) imaging with real-time quantitative image analysis via deep learning (artificial intelligence-augmented CARS or iCARS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the capability of the iCARS system to identify and differentiate the parathyroid gland and recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) from surrounding tissues and detect cancer margins. This goal was successfully met.

Patient out-of-pocket costs for suspicious pulmonary nodule biopsy in lung cancer patients.

AIMS: Dynamic changes in the payer landscape have resulted in increasing out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs). Little is known about OOPC for patients undergoing biopsy for suspicious pulmonary nodules in the United States. This study seeks to describe the spectrum of OOPC for diagnostic tissue sampling for suspicious pulmonary nodule with an ultimate diagnosis of lung cancer. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients with a primary lung cancer diagnosis and treatment who underwent diagnostic biopsy for suspicious pulmonary nodule utilizing IBM Marketscan Databases (2013-2017). Claims data included both total hospital and physician billed costs, insurer reimbursement and OOPC. OOPCs were further stratified by type of biopsy, whether the patient underwent a single or multiple biopsies, and year of biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 22,870 patients aged 18-95 who underwent diagnostic lung biopsy were identified. The gender ratio was 49:51 for female:male and 50% of patients were aged 65 or above. 78% of patients had a co-morbidity. The median OOPC for a patient receiving a single biopsy (any type) was $600, two biopsies: $706, three biopsies: $811, and four biopsies: $1,177. By biopsy type, the median OOPC for a patient requiring a single biopsy was $604 for percutaneous biopsy, $316 for surgical biopsy, $674 for bronchoscopic biopsy, and $545 for mediastinoscopic biopsy. LIMITATIONS: Under-estimation of OOP expenses from costs of transportation, job loss, and loss of productivity. Over-estimation of OOPC from lack of individual claims adjudication. CONCLUSIONS: The median OOPC for lung cancer patient requiring a single diagnostic lung biopsy is $600. Prior research indicates that almost 50% of the lung cancer patient population undergoes multiple biopsies increasing costs anywhere between 20% and 100% resulting in further patient financial burden for each episodic biopsy attempt. Further cost-effectiveness research is needed to differentiate various diagnostic technologies for lung biopsy.

Reinventing Yourself Virtually: Fifth Annual Society of Asian Academic Surgeons Virtual Conference.

Virtual forms of communication have been integrated into academic surgery now more than ever. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated its implementation in an effort to support social-distancing. Academic surgery is now learning valuable lessons from early experiences to optimally integrate this communication mode. The Society of Asian Academic Surgeons convened an expert panel during the society's fifth annual meeting that explores these lessons. Realms of virtual communication including meetings, networking, surgery department administration, social media, application processes, and advice for early or mid-career academic surgeons are explored. Virtual conferences pose a new challenge by removing the in-person component that is evident to be integral to networking, collaboration, and all aspects of academic socialization. Strategies such as creating virtual chat rooms, mentor-mentee virtual introductions, and deliberate interactions can enhance the experience. Virtual administrative meetings require special attention to preparation and strategies to insure engagement. Social media can be a valuable tool to integrate into academic careers but special attention needs to be made to utilize it deliberately and not to shy away from our individuality. The interview process can be enhanced when made virtual to give opportunities to those typically disadvantaged in the usual, in-person process.