Examination of the Novel National Institutes of Health-Supported Relative Citation Ratio, a Measure of Research Productivity, Among Academic Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Considerable interest has been devoted to quantifying research productivity for the purposes of academic appointment and promotion in plastic surgery. A novel bibliometric, the relative citation ratio (RCR), integrates features unavailable in prior metrics, such as the h-index, including the ability to compare researchers in distinct fields. This investigation examines the RCR in relation to established measures of academic productivity and provides the benchmark data in plastic surgery. METHODS: Online sources were queried to identify the characteristics of 955 academic plastic surgeons from 94 programs, ie, academic rank, gender, degrees, and fellowships. Bibliometric data were acquired using the iCite and Scopus databases. Comparative and correlational analyses of variables were performed. RESULTS: Academic plastic surgeons were exceptionally productive, with a mean RCR of 1.20 (interquartile range, 0.79-1.67) and a weighted RCR of 17.68 (interquartile range, 5.14-52.48). Increased mean RCR was significantly associated with advanced academic rank and fellowship training. Increased weighted RCR was significantly associated with advanced academic rank, male gender, PhD acquisition, publication experience, and fellowship training. The h-index was weakly correlated with mean RCR but strongly correlated with weighted RCR and publication experience. CONCLUSIONS: The RCR was associated with established markers of academic productivity, indicating its validity as a reliable field-normalized measure for the evaluation of plastic surgery faculty. Because scholarly output is a potential factor with respect to decisions of hiring, promotion, and allocation of funding, this modality of standardized comparison is paramount for plastic surgeons who exist within a larger general surgery department.

Is There a Role for Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for cT4bM0 Colon Cancer? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Nonmetastatic T4b colon cancer has been traditionally treated with upfront surgery, often requiring technically challenging multiorgan resection. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can potentially downsize these tumors and improve their resectability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore trends and outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy use compared to upfront surgery in patients with nonmetastatic T4b colon cancer. This study also sought to determine factors associated with increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy use and with overall survival. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Conducted using the National Cancer Database. PATIENTS: Patients with nonmetastatic T4b colon cancer who underwent colectomy (2006-2016) were included in the study. Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were propensity-matched (1:2) to those who underwent upfront surgery in either clinically node-negative or node-positive disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative outcomes (length of stay, 30-d readmission, 30/90-d mortality), oncologic resection adequacy (R0 rate, number of resected/positive nodes), and overall survival were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in 7.7% of the patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use increased over the study period from 4% to 16% in the entire cohort, from 3% to 21% in patients with clinically node-positive disease, and from 6% to 12% in patients with clinically node-negative disease. Factors associated with increased use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy included younger age (OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; p < 0.001), male sex (OR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.64; p = 0.002), recent diagnosis year (OR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20; p < 0.001), academic centers (OR 2.65; 95% CI, 2.19-3.22; p < 0.001), clinically node-positive (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49; p = 0.037), and tumor located in the sigmoid colon (OR 2.44; 95% CI, 1.97-3.02; p < 0.001). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy had significantly higher R0 resection compared with upfront surgery (87% vs 77%; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with higher overall survival (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91; p = 0.002). On propensity-matched analyses, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a higher 5-year overall survival compared to upfront surgery in patients with clinically node-positive disease (57% vs 43%; p = 0.003) but not in patients with clinically node-negative disease (61% vs 56%; p = 0.090). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use for nonmetastatic T4b has increased significantly on the national level, more so in patients with clinically node-positive disease. Patients with node-positive disease treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy had higher overall survival compared to those who underwent upfront surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C228 . EXISTE LUGAR PARA LA TERAPIA SISTMICA NEOADYUVANTE PARA EL CNCER DE COLON CTBM UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO DE PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN DE LA BASE DE DATOS NACIONAL DEL CNCER: ANTECEDENTES:El cáncer de colon T4b no metastásico se ha tratado tradicionalmente con cirugía inicial, que frecuentemente requiere de una resección multiorgánica técnicamente desafiante. La quimioterapia neoadyuvante puede potencialmente reducir el tamaño y mejorar la resecabilidad de esos tumores.OBJETIVO:Explorar las tendencias y los resultados del uso de quimioterapia neoadyuvante en pacientes con cáncer de colon T4b no metastásico, en comparación con la cirugía inicial. Determinar los factores asociados con el aumento del uso de quimioterapia neoadyuvante y con la supervivencia general.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Utilizando de la Base de Datos Nacional del Cáncer.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer de colon T4b no metastásico sometidos a colectomía (2006-2016). Los pacientes que recibieron quimioterapia neoadyuvante fueron emparejados por propensión (1:2) con aquellos sometidos a cirugía inicial, ya sea en enfermedad clínica con ganglios negativos o ganglios positivos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Resultados posoperatorios (duración de la hospitalización, reingreso a los 30 días, mortalidad a los 30/90 días), adecuación de la resección oncológica (tasa R0, número de ganglios resecados/positivos) y supervivencia general.RESULTADOS:La quimioterapia neoadyuvante se utilizó en el 7,7% de los pacientes. El uso de quimioterapia neoadyuvante aumentó durante el período de estudio del 4% al 16% en toda la cohorte; del 3% al 21% en pacientes con enfermedad clínica y ganglios positivos; y del 6% al 12% en pacientes con enfermedad clínica y ganglios negativos. Los factores asociados con un mayor uso de quimioterapia neoadyuvante incluyeron, edad más joven (OR 0,97, IC del 95 %: 0,96-0,98, p < 0,001), sexo masculino (OR 1,35, IC del 95 %: 1,11-1,64, p = 0,002), año de diagnóstico mas reciente (OR 1,16, 95% IC: 1,12-1,20, p < 0,001), centros académicos (OR 2,65, 95% IC: 2,19-3,22, p < 0,001), enfermedad clínica con ganglios positivos (OR 1,23, 95% IC: 1,01-1,49, p = 0,037), y tumor localizado en colon sigmoide (OR 2,44, 95% IC: 1,97-3,02, p < 0,001). Los pacientes que recibieron quimioterapia neoadyuvante tuvieron una resección R0 significativamente mayor en comparación con la cirugía inicial (87 % frente a 77 %, p < 0,001). En análisis multivariable, la quimioterapia neoadyuvante se asoció con una mayor supervivencia global (HR 0,76, IC del 95%: 0,64-0,91, p = 0,002). En los análisis de propensión pareada, la quimioterapia neoadyuvante se asoció con una mayor supervivencia general a los 5 años en comparación con la cirugía inicial en pacientes con enfermedad clínica con ganglios positivos (57% frente a 43%, p = 0,003), pero no en pacientes con enfermedad clínica y ganglios negativos (61% vs 56%, p = 0,090).LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN:El uso de quimioterapia neoadyuvante para T4b no metastásico ha aumentado significativamente a nivel nacional, más aún en pacientes con enfermedad clínica y ganglios positivos. Los pacientes con enfermedad y ganglios positivos tratados con quimioterapia neoadyuvante tuvieron una mayor supervivencia general en comparación con la cirugía inicial. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C228 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Robotic Approach is Associated With a Lower Conversion Rate Compared to Laparoscopic Approach for Patients Undergoing Colectomy for T4b Colon Cancer. An Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

INTRODUCTION: We examined the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for T4b colon cancer, as well as the clinical factors associated with conversion to an open approach and its consequences on perioperative and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing colectomy for cT4b colon cancer (2010-2016). Patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic colectomy were matched using Propensity-Score analysis. Factors associated with conversion to an open approach were assessed using Logistic-regression multivariable-analysis (MVA). RESULTS: Colectomy for cT4b colon cancer was performed in 9030 patients (open: n = 6,543, robotic: n = 157, laparoscopic: n = 2330). In the propensity-matched groups, robotic approach had lower rate of conversion (12% vs 37%, P < .001), shorter hospital stays (5 vs 7-days, P = .02), and similar overall-survival (5-yr: 49% vs 39%, P = .16), compared to laparoscopic approach. Conversion to an open approach was noted in 801(32%) of the patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical colectomy (robotic n = 23(15%), laparoscopic n = 778(33%). Factors associated with lower rate of conversion on multivariable-analysis included recent year of surgery (95% CI: 0.88-.97), robotic approach (95% CI: 0.22-.56), and surgeries performed in Academic hospitals (95% CI: 0.65-.96). Conversion to an open approach was associated with higher rate of positive parenchymal margin (31% vs 25%, P = .001), higher rate of 30-day readmission (12% vs 9.5%, P = .04), and similar overall survival (5-yr: 32% vs 35%, P = .19), compared to those who had no conversion. CONCLUSION: At the National level, patients undergoing colectomy for T4b colon cancer via a robotic approach had more favorable perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic approach. Conversion to an open approach did not compromise long term survival, despite being associated with higher rate of positive margins and readmissions rate.

Recommendations on Attaining Departmental Status: A Survey of Division Chiefs Turned Department Chairs.

In 2009, the Association of Academic Chairmen of Plastic Surgery, now known as the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons (ACAPS), published a white paper endorsing the conversion of plastic surgery divisions into autonomous departments, motioning for other national organizations to follow suit. ACAPS' rationale outlined 11 factors intended to promote the favorability of attaining departmental status within an institution. Through surveying division chiefs turned founding department chairs who successfully executed this transition, we evaluate the practicality and efficacy of these guidelines. A survey was distributed to founding chairs of plastic surgery departments that were established after ACAPS' 2009 white paper. Information pertaining to institutions' demographic information and respondents' utilization of the principles and suggestions espoused in the white paper was obtained. The survey achieved an 86% response rate. The average time needed for the transition was 22 ± 12 months. Four of seven chairs were familiar with the 2009 ACAPS white paper. Garnering support from hospital administrators and institutional stakeholders, having fiscal profitability within the institution, and coordinating an integrated plastic surgery training program were ranked as the top three most important factors, respectively. This study assesses ACAPS' recommendations on transitioning from a division to a department on the basis of perceived utility by academic leaders who recently navigated the process. The most frequently cited factors for a successful transition included rallying support from institutional stakeholders and ensuring profitability. Additionally, aligning the timing with a concurrent transition of leadership can expedite the process.

National Trends and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Hepatectomy in the USA: A Propensity-score Matched Analysis from the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: A paucity of data exists on the national use of robotic hepatectomy. We assessed national trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic hepatectomy in the USA. In addition, factors associated with use of the robotic approach were analyzed. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients undergoing hepatectomy from 2010 to 2016. Patients undergoing total hepatectomy for transplant were excluded. Factors associated with the use of the robotic approach were assessed using logistic regression multivariable analysis. Propensity-score analysis was performed (robotic vs. laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches), and perioperative outcomes were compared between the matched groups. RESULTS: The robotic approach was used in 287 patients (110 hospitals). Utilization of the robotic approach increased significantly on the national level from 0.8% in 2010 to 4.1% in 2016 (P<0.001). The number of hospitals performing a minimum of one robotic hepatectomy per year increased from 8 in 2010 to 35 in 2016. The median hospital length of stay was 4 days (IQR 3-6), 30-day readmission rate was 5%, and 30-day/90-day mortality rates were 3%/4%. Factors associated with using robotic approach were African-American race (95% CI 1.02-2.11), recent year of surgery (95% CI 1.11-1.32), HCC histology (95% CI 1.01-52.03), tumor size (95% CI 0.87-0.96), and early-stage tumor (Stage I-II, 95% CI 1.27-3.99). On propensity-matched analysis, there were no differences between robotic and open approaches (n=184 each group) in 30-day readmission (5% vs. 7%, P=0.651), 30-day mortality (2% vs. 4%, P=0.106), 90-day mortality (3% vs. 7%, P=0.080), or 5-year overall survival (58% vs. 43%, P=0.211). However, the robotic approach was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (median: 4 vs. 6 days, P<0.001). There were no differences between matched groups of patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic approaches (n=182 in each group) in perioperative outcomes or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: National use of robotic-assisted hepatectomy has increased by fivefold over the seven-year study period. It was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay compared to the open approach without compromising perioperative outcomes or survival.

Characteristics of Successful Integrated Plastic Surgery Applicants from US Allopathic Medical Schools without a Home Integrated Program.

OBJECTIVE: Integrated plastic surgery (PS) is one of the most competitive residency programs, but current literature lacks data specific to matched applicants from medical schools without home integrated PS residency programs (NHP). Therefore, there is a need to examine this specific demographic of applicants to identify key factors that led to a successful match. DESIGN: An anonymous survey was sent to PS residents who graduated from US allopathic medical schools with NHP. Survey questions focused on applicants' objective statistics (USMLE scores, research experiences, etc.), as well as various other factors, including access to resources and letters of recommendation. SETTING: All US-based integrated plastic surgery residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: PGY-1 through PGY-6 integrated PS residents who graduated from US allopathic medical schools with NHP. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 178 NHP residents from May to June of 2021, achieving a 55.1% response rate. Thirty-seven percent attended an institution with an independent, but not integrated, residency program. Average USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores were 248 ± 10.1 and 256 ± 9.7, respectively. Respondents reported having 9.8 ± 9.5 abstracts, presentations, and publications listed on their residency applications. NHP applicants had an average of 1.5 letters of recommendation written by away rotation faculty. Forty-five percent reported accessing resources at institutions with home integrated residency programs (HP), 55.6% of whom "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that this significantly helped in matching. CONCLUSION: The USMLE Step scores and research experiences of NHP residents are similar to those which are reported among all matched applicants nationally. NHP respondents optimized their success by utilizing plastic surgery-related resources at their own institutions, while often seeking resources at other institutions.

Ranking United States University-Based General Surgery Programs on the Academic Achievement of Surgery Department Faculty.

OBJECTIVE: Rankings of residency programs are highly influential and utilized by residency applicants. Existing ranking resources often use opaque criteria that may include bias or do not accurately represent the academic achievement of current faculty. This study aims to create an updated general surgery residency ranking list based on the academic achievements of their respective surgery department faculty members. DESIGN: One hundred and six general surgery residency programs were selected from the American Medical Association Residency & Fellowship Programs Database. The names of faculty members affiliated with the departments of surgery were manually obtained. Lifetime and five-year h-indexes, a sum of grant awards from the National Institute of Health and Veterans Affairs, and a tally of journal editorial board positions were collected for the faculty. Metrics were compared among surgical departments, and the corresponding residency programs were ranked accordingly. SETTING: The study evaluated university-based general surgery residency programs in the United States from 2017 to 2019 via assessing their respective institutions' departments of surgery. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7568 faculty members were evaluated. Faculty were required to be full-time, clinical surgeons to meet inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Based on a composite of all measured criteria, the top overall surgery department was at the University of Michigan. Massachusetts General Hospital had the highest lifetime and five-year h-indexes. Brigham and Women's Hospital had the most National Institute of Health funding, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center had the most Veterans Affairs funding. Washington University in St. Louis/Barnes Jewish Hospital had the most editorial board positions in their department. CONCLUSIONS: The academic success of departments of surgery was evaluated to develop a ranking list of general surgery residency programs. Through utilizing standardized methods and several measures of academic achievement, this comprehensive general surgery residency classification system will allow residency applicants to make more informed decisions.