Omission of Completion Lymph Node Dissection in Sentinel Node Biopsy Positive Head and Neck Cutaneous Melanoma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies evaluating patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB+) show no melanoma-specific survival difference between patients undergoing lymph node basin surveillance and completion lymph node dissection (CLND). This has been broadly applied, despite underrepresentation of head and neck (HN) cutaneous melanoma patients. We evaluated whether this was upheld in the HN melanoma cohort. METHODS: Patients with HN melanoma with a SLNB+ were selected from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2012 to 2019. Overall survival (OS) of patients who underwent SLNB only versus SLNB + CLND were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed based on pathologic N (pN) and receipt of immunotherapy. Adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Analysis of 634 patients with multivariable Cox regression showed no difference in OS in SLNB only versus SLNB + CLND cohorts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.81; p = 0.610). Charlson-Deyo score (CDS) 1 versus 0 (HR 1.70; 95% CI 1.10-2.63; p = 0.016), pN2+ versus pN1 (HR 1.74; 95% CI 1.23-2.45; p = 0.002), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) versus no (HR 2.07; 95% CI 1.34-3.19; p = 0.001) were associated with worse prognosis. Subgroup analysis by pN showed no OS benefit for CLND in either pN1 (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.51-2.10; p = 0.922) or pN2+ (HR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.57; p = 0.427) patients or in patients who received immunotherapy (HR 1.32; 95% CI 0.54-3.22; p = 0.549). CONCLUSIONS: This study of SLNB + HN melanoma patients showed no OS difference in SLNB only versus SLNB + CLND. Further studies need to be performed to better define the role of CLND.

Establishing and maintaining a remote vascular surgery aortic program: A single-center 5-year experience at the Veterans Affairs.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to detail the process of establishing a surgical aortic telehealth program and report the outcomes of a 5-year experience. METHODS: A telehealth program was established between two regional Veterans Affairs hospitals, one of which was without a comprehensive aortic surgical program, until such a program was established at the referring institution. A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent aortic surgery from 2014 to 2019. The operative data, demographics, perioperative complications, and follow-up data were reviewed. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2019, 109 patients underwent aortic surgery for occlusive and aneurysmal disease. Preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up were done remotely via telehealth. The median age of the patients was 68 years, 107 were men (98.2%), 28 (25.7%) underwent open aortic repair, and 81 (74.3%) underwent endovascular repair. Of the 109 patients, 101 (92.7%) had a median follow-up of 24.3 months, 5 (4.6%) were lost to follow-up or were noncompliant, 2 (1.8%) were noncompliant with their follow-up imaging studies but responded to telephone interviews, and 1 (0.9%) moved to another state. At the 30-day follow-up, eight patients (7.3%) required readmission. Four complications were managed locally, and four patients (3.6%) required transfer back to the operative hospital for additional care. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth is a great tool to provide perioperative care and long-term follow-up for patients with aortic pathologies in remote locations. Most postoperative care and complications can be managed remotely, and patient compliance for long-term follow-up is high.

Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with monitored anesthesia care decreases operative time but not pulmonary complications.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience and compare the results of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to PEVAR under general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent non-emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) was completed. Patients were excluded if they had a complex repair, including fenestrated, branched, or parallel endografting. Demographics, operative data, 30-day mortality/morbidity and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were identified with a median age of 69. 115 patients had PEVAR, 45 (39.1%) PEVAR MAC and 70 (60.9%) PEVAR GA. PEVAR MAC compared to PEVAR GA had decreased operative time (106 vs. 134 min, P < 0.001), time in the operating room (163 vs. 245 min, P = 0.016), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (115 vs. 176 mL P = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.9 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.133), and post-operative complications including pulmonary (2.2 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.835). Forty-four patients had EVAR with a femoral cutdown (FC), including 14 PEVAR conversions. PEVAR conversion was associated with higher EBL (543 vs. 323 mL, P = 0.03), operative time (230 vs. 178 min, P = 0.01), and operating room time (307 vs. 275 min, P = 0.01) compared to planned EVAR with FC. CONCLUSIONS: PEVAR under MAC is associated with shorter time in the operating room compared to PEVAR under GA. PEVAR under MAC does however not decrease overall morbidities, including postoperative pulmonary complications.

Overcoming Disparities in Cancer: A Need for Meaningful Reform for Hispanic and Latino Cancer Survivors.

Hispanic and Latino (HL) cancer survivors are at a critical disadvantage compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients regarding sociodemographic adversities and access to equitable treatment options. By 2030, there will be about four million HL cancer survivors in the U.S., representing nearly 20% of survivors in this country. Hispanics and Latinos are subjected to significant challenges in accessing and receiving equitable care relative to NHWs. Hispanics and Latinos also experience lower rates of health insurance and financial resources, limiting health care options. These disparities often originate from disparate social determinants of health, including lower funding for education and school programs, greater neighborhood stressors and violence, lower access to healthy and affordable food, and greater barriers to community health and exercise opportunities. Even among HL cancer survivors with proper access to health care, they experience disparate treatment options, including low inclusion in clinical trials and/or access to experimental therapies. A solution to these barriers necessitates complex and systemic changes that involve, for example, investing in public health programs, increasing the diversity and cultural awareness of the medical workforce, and promoting research opportunities such as clinical trials that are inclusive of HLs. Only through meaningful reform will equitable cancer care be available for all in the U.S. regardless of racial and/or ethnic background. This article reviews some of the critical social determinants of health and biases relevant to HL cancer survivors and provides recommendations for achieving cancer health equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Hispanics and Latinos experience a significant and often disproportionate cancer-related burden compared with non-Hispanic and Latino White individuals and other racial and ethnic groups. Meaningful reform to achieve health equity in oncology should focus on approaches to gaining trust among diverse patients, cultural and community sensitivity and engagement in oncology care and research, diversifying the workforce, and improving inclusion in clinical trial participation. Taken together, these recommendations can lead to exemplary and equitable care for all patients.

Disparities in Presentation at Time of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis: A United States Safety-Net Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: While hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is ideally diagnosed outpatient by screening at-risk patients, many are diagnosed in Emergency Departments (ED) due to undiagnosed liver disease and/or limited access-to-healthcare. This study aims to identify sociodemographic/clinical factors associated with being diagnosed with HCC in the ED to identify patients who may benefit from improved access-to-care. METHODS: HCC patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2014 in the ED or an outpatient setting [Primary Care Physician (PCP) or hepatologist] were identified from the US Safety-Net Collaborative database and underwent retrospective chart-review. Multivariable regression identified predictors for an ED diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 1620 patients, median age was 60, 68% were diagnosed outpatient, and 32% were diagnosed in the ED. ED patients were more likely male, Black/Hispanic, uninsured, and presented with more decompensated liver disease, aggressive features, and advanced clinical stage. On multivariable regression, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, poverty, insurance, and PCP/navigator access, predictors for ED diagnosis were male (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.2, p = 0.010), black (OR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2-2.3, p = 0.002), Hispanic (OR 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.6, p = 0.029), > 25% below poverty line (OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.9, p = 0.019), uninsured (OR 3.9, 95% CI: 2.4-6.1, p < 0.001), and lack of PCP (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.5-3.6, p < 0.001) or navigator (OR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-2.5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The sociodemographic/clinical profile of patients diagnosed with HCC in EDs differs significantly from those diagnosed outpatient. ED patients were more likely racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and had limited access to healthcare. This study highlights the importance of improved access-to-care in already vulnerable populations.

Surgical oncology operative experience at a high-volume safety-net hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to disruptions in operative and hospital capabilities as the country triaged resources and canceled elective procedures. This study details the operative experience of a safety-net hospital for cancer-related operations during a 3-month period at the height of the pandemic. METHODS: Patients operated on for or diagnosed with malignancies of the abdomen, breast, skin, or soft-tissue (September 3, 2020-September 6, 2020) were identified from operative/clinic schedules. Sociodemographics, tumor and treatment characteristics, and COVID-19 information was identified through retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty patients evaluated within this window underwent oncologic surgery. Median age was 61 (interquartile range: 53-68), 56% were female, 86% were White, and 66% were Hispanic. The majority (28%) were for colon cancer. Only two patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively or within 30 days of their operation. There were no mortalities during the 1-year study period. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals and operative centers limited interventions to preserve resources, but oncologic procedures continued at many large-volume academic cancer centers. This study underscores the importance of continuing to offer surgery during the pandemic for surgical oncology cases at safety-net hospitals to minimize delays in time-sensitive oncologic treatment.

Surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with portal vein thrombosis: The United States Safety Net and Academic Center Collaborative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although consensus guidelines generally discourage any surgical management (ASM; i.e., resection and/or transplantation) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT), recent series from Asia have challenged this paradigm. METHODS: Patients from the US Safety Net Collaborative database (2012-2014) with localized HCC and radiographically confirmed PVT were propensity-score matched based on demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with receipt of ASM and overall survival (OS). OS was compared between patients undergoing ASM and those not selected for surgery. RESULTS: Of 1910 HCC patients, 207 (14.5%) had localized disease and PVT. The majority received either liver-directed therapies (LDTs; 34%) and/or targeted systemic therapies (36%). Twenty-one patients (10.1%) underwent ASM (resection [n = 11], transplantation [n = 10]); a third experienced any complication with no 30-day mortalities. Independent predictors of undergoing ASM were younger age, recent hepatology consultation, and lower model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. After matching for age, comorbidities, MELD, tumor size, receipt of LDT, or systemic therapy, OS was significantly longer for patients selected for ASM versus non-ASM patients (median not reached vs. 5.8 months, p < .001). CONCLUSION: In a large North American multi-institutional cohort, a minority of HCC patients with PVT were selected for ASM. Resection or transplantation was associated with improved survival and may have a role in the multimodality management in selected patients.

Attrition during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric adenocarcinoma is associated with decreased survival: A United States Safety-Net Collaborative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is standard management for localized gastric cancer (GC). Attrition during NAC due to treatment-related toxicity or functional decline is considered a surrogate for worse biologic outcomes; however, data supporting this paradigm are lacking. We investigated factors predicting attrition and its association with overall survival (OS) in GC. METHODS: Patients with nonmetastatic GC initiating NAC were identified from the US Safety-Net Collaborative (2012-2014). Patient/treatment-related characteristics were compared between attrition/nonattrition cohorts. Cox models determined factors associated with OS. RESULTS: Of 116 patients initiating NAC, attrition during prescribed NAC occurred in 24%. No differences were observed in performance status, comorbidities, treatment at safety-net hospital, or clinicopathologic factors between cohorts. Despite absence of distinguishing factors, attrition was associated with worse OS (median: 11 vs. 37 months; p = 0.01) and was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-15.2; p = 0.02). Fewer patients with attrition underwent curative-intent surgery (39% vs. 89%; p < 0.001). Even in patients undergoing surgical exploration (n = 89), NAC attrition remained an independent predictor of worse OS (HR: 50.8, 95% CI: 3.6-717.8; p = 0.004) despite similar receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Attrition during NAC for nonmetastatic GC is independently associated with worse OS, even in patients undergoing surgery. Attrition during NAC may reflect unfavorable tumor biology not captured by conventional staging metrics.

Survival inequity in vulnerable populations with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a United States safety-net collaborative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Access to health insurance and curative interventions [surgery/liver-directed-therapy (LDT)] affects survival for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this multi-institutional study of high-volume safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and their tertiary-academic-centers (AC) was to identify the impact of type/lack of insurance on survival disparities across hospitals, particularly SNHs whose mission is to minimize insurance related access-to-care barriers for vulnerable populations. METHODS: Early-stage HCC patients (2012-2014) from the US Safety-Net Collaborative were propensity-score matched by treatment at SNH/AC. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazard analysis was performed accounting for sociodemographic/clinical parameters. RESULTS: Among 925 patients, those with no insurance (NI) had decreased curative surgery, compared to those with government insurance (GI) and private insurance [PI, (PI-SNH:60.5% vs. GI-SNH:33.1% vs. NI-SNH:13.6%, p < 0.001)], and decreased median OS (PI-SNH:32.1 vs. GI-SNH:22.8 vs. NI-SNH:9.4 months, p = 0.002). On multivariable regression controlling for sociodemographic/clinical parameters, NI-SNH (HR:2.5, 95% CI:1.3-4.9, p = 0.007) was the only insurance type/hospital system combination with significantly worse OS. CONCLUSION: NI-SNH patients received less curative treatment than other insurance/hospitals types suggesting that treatment barriers, beyond access-to-care, need to be identified and addressed to achieve survival equity in early-stage HCC for vulnerable populations (NI-SNH).

The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care.

The increasing use of eHealth has ushered in a new era of patient-centred cancer care that moves beyond the traditional in-person care model to real-time, dynamic, and technology-assisted assessments and interventions. eHealth has the potential to better the delivery of cancer care through improved patient-provider communication, enhanced symptom and toxicity assessment and management, and optimised patient engagement across the cancer care continuum. In this Review, we provide a brief, narrative appraisal of the peer reviewed literature over the past 10 years related to the uses of patient-centred eHealth to improve cancer care delivery. These uses include the addressal of symptom management, health-related quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes across cancer care. In addition, we discuss the challenges of, and opportunities for, accessibility, scalability, and implementation of these technologies, important areas for further development, and future research directions.

Heterotopic Ossification of the Abdomen: A Rare Sequela Following Trauma and Damage Control Laparotomy.

Heterotopic ossification (HO) of the abdomen is a rare yet highly morbid complication following blunt and penetrating trauma requiring damage control laparotomy. We present the case of a 22-year-old man, 20 months after life-threatening motor vehicle crash with major vascular injury requiring multiple abdominal surgeries. The patient was initially treated at a community hospital and subsequently developed a chronic left lower quadrant enterocutaneous fistula, accompanied by a gradually worsening diffuse abdominal pain. He was referred to our tertiary care center with extensive skin breakdown and an inability to control the fistula despite numerous wound care consultations. He also had severe abdominal deformities due to HO in the abdominal wall, peritoneum, paraspinal muscles, and parapelvic regions. As HO is largely underreported, it is crucial to refer those patients, once medically stabilized, to tertiary care centers for surveillance and possible treatment when symptomatic.

Implementation of a Surgical Problem-Based Learning Curriculum: A One-Year Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Problem-Based Learning (PBL) has become an integral part of medical student education for preclinical curricula, but few studies have evaluated the benefits of a PBL curriculum for clinical education. This study aims to assess the 1-year experience after implementing a resident-led PBL program for the third-year (MS3) surgery clerkship and compare students' self-reported preparedness following PBL sessions to traditional faculty-led lectures. METHODS: Surgical faculty and residents developed a PBL curriculum to address common topics in surgical education. Pandemic requirements necessitated a switch from in-person to virtual sessions during the experience. Students enrolled in the MS3 surgical clerkship were asked to participate in a survey. Demographics and clerkship data were obtained. Quality of PBL and faculty-led lectures were assessed using a ten-point Likert scale, and standard statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, 165 students rotated through surgery, of which 129 (78%) responded to the survey (53% female, 59% white). PBLs were held in-person (53%), exclusively virtual (32%) or hybrid (15%) platforms. In-person PBLs were preferred to faculty-led lectures for preparing students for NBME examinations (6.9 vs 6.0), oral examinations (7.8 vs 6.3), and surgical cases (6.3 vs 5.8), all P < .001. Virtual PBLs were also preferred to lectures for preparing students for NBME examinations (6.8 vs 5.8, P < .001) and surgical cases (5.6 vs 4.8, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: PBL is a valuable adjunct for medical student education. Resident-led PBLs were preferred to faculty-led lectures for preparing students for examinations and clerkship experiences and may be useful adjuncts to clinical education.

Nationwide Outcomes of Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Malignancies: Center Volume Matters.

BACKGROUND: Complex surgeries such as pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) have been shown to have better outcomes when performed at high-volume centers (HVCs) compared to low-volume centers (LVCs). Few studies have compared these factors on a national level. The purpose of this study was to analyze nationwide outcomes for patients undergoing PD across hospital centers with different surgical volumes. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (2010-2014) was queried for all patients who underwent open PD for pancreatic carcinoma. High-volume centers were defined as hospitals where 20 or more PDs were performed per year. Sociodemographic factors, readmission rates, and perioperative outcomes were compared before and after propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA) for 76 covariates including demographics, hospital factors, comorbidities, and additional diagnoses. Results were weighted for national estimates. RESULTS: A total of 19,810 patients were identified with age 66 ± 11 years. There were 6,840 (35%) cases performed at LVCs, and 12,970 (65%) at HVCs. Patient comorbidities were greater in the LVC cohort, and more PDs were performed at teaching hospitals in the HVC cohort. These discrepancies were controlled for with PSMA. Length of stay (LOS), mortality, invasive procedures, and perioperative complications were greater in LVCs when compared to HVCs before and after PSMA. Additionally, readmission rates at one year (38% vs 34%, P < .001) and readmission complications were greater in the LVC cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreaticoduodenectomy is more commonly performed at HVCs, which is associated with less complications and improved outcomes compared to LVCs.

Comparison of Immediate Breast Reconstruction Outcomes in Patients With and Without Prior Cosmetic Breast Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Skin-sparing (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) have significantly increased. There is limited information on complications of IBR in patients with prior cosmetic breast surgery (CBS). We compare IBR outcomes in patients undergoing SSM and/or NSM with and without prior CBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing mastectomy from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019 were selected. Patient characteristics, surgical approach, and complications were compared between mastectomy and IBR cases for breasts with and without prior CBS. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of complications and reconstruction loss. RESULTS: 956 mastectomies were performed in 697 patients, with IBR performed for 545 mastectomies in 356 patients. Median age was 51 (range 19-83), 45.8% of patients were age < 50, 62.6% of mastectomies were performed for breast cancer. 95 mastectomies (17.4%) were performed in breasts with prior CBS and 450 (82.6%) without. NSM was more frequently utilized for breasts with prior CBS (P < .001). Complications occurred in 80 mastectomies (14.7%); reconstruction loss in 30 (5.5%). On multivariable analysis, age ≥ 50 (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01-3.09, P = .047) and NSM (OR 2.11, 95%CI 1.17-3.79, P = .013) were associated with an increased risk of any complication. Prior CBS was not associated with an increased risk of complications (OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.58-2.14, P = .743) or reconstruction loss (OR 1.32, 95%CI 0.51-3.38, P = .567). CONCLUSION: In this analysis of mastectomy and IBR, prior CBS was not associated with an increased risk of complications or reconstruction loss. In patients with prior CBS undergoing mastectomy, IBR may be safely performed.

An Analysis of Individual and Contextual-Level Disparities in Screening, Treatment, and Outcomes for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver and affects patients of all genders, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic status. While the causes of HCC are numerous, the primary etiology is cirrhosis from alcohol and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and from infectious agents such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C in the developing world. In patients at-risk for developing HCC, screening is recommended with ultrasound imaging and alpha fetoprotein laboratory tests. In socioeconomically vulnerable patients, however, individual-level barriers (eg, insurance status) and contextual-level disparities (eg, health facilities) may not be readily available, thus limiting screening. Additional challenges faced by racial/ethnic minorities can further challenge the spectrum of HCC care and lead to inadequate screening, delayed diagnosis, and unequal access to treatment. Efforts to improve these multilevel factors that lead to screening and treatment disparities are critical to overcoming challenges. Providing health insurance to those without access, improving societal challenges that confine patients to a lower socioeconomic status, and reducing challenges to seeking healthcare can decrease the morbidity and mortality of these patients. Additionally, engaging with communities and allowing them to collaborate in their own healthcare can also help to attenuate these inequities. Through collaborative multidisciplinary change, we can make progress in tackling disparities in vulnerable populations to achieve health equity.

Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19): telemedicine and remote care delivery in a time of medical crisis, implementation, and challenges.

The novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to many challenges throughout the world, one of which is the delivery of health care to patients while they remain home. Telemedicine, or the use of electronic information and telecommunication technologies to support and promote long-distance clinical health care, has been utilized by health care providers for many years, but its widespread implementation did not occur until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, it has become the primary mechanism of care delivery for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. While obstacles are present for hospitals and providers to establish these services, most barriers exist with patient access. Patients require advanced technical support, translator services, and other measures to become comfortable engaging in a telemedicine encounter. In addition, appropriate follow-up must be provided for chronic medical illnesses and malignancies, helping to prevent the evolution of these conditions during the COVID-19 crisis. Finally, we must ensure equity for all patients seeking to access health services, including those of lower socioeconomic status. Many of these patients rely on public hotspots or library computers for their internet connectivity, but this is likely not conducive to a clinical encounter. These barriers must be addressed to ensure health equity for all patients seeking care. Telemedicine can connect patients and providers during this time of crisis and hopefully will serve as a model for continued use after the pandemic has abated.

Medical Student Education During COVID-19: Electronic Education Does Not Decrease Examination Scores.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 emergency, medical students were mandated to remain home, creating challenges to providing education remotely for third-year clinical rotations. This study aims to assess student reception and investigate objective outcomes to determine if online learning is a suitable alternative. METHODS: Medical students enrolled in the third-year surgical clerkship during COVID-19 were asked to participate in a survey. 19 of 27 (70%) students participated. Content, faculty-led lectures, and resident-led problem-based learning (PBL) sessions were assessed using a ten-point Likert scale. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) examination, weekly quiz, and oral examination scores were compared to previous years. Student t-tests compared the groups. RESULTS: The median age was 25 years. Comparing in-person to electronic sessions, there was no difference in effectiveness of faculty sessions preparing students for NBME (6.2 vs. 6.7, P = .46) or oral examinations (6.4 vs. 6.8, P = .58); there was also no difference in resident-led PBL sessions preparing students for NBME (7.2 vs. 7.2, P = .92) or oral examinations (7.4 vs. 7.6, P = .74). Comparing this group to students from the previous academic year, there was no difference in weekly quiz (85.3 vs. 87.8, P = .13), oral examination (89.8 vs. 93.9, P = .07), or NBME examination (75.3 vs. 77.4, P = .33) scores. DISCUSSION: Surgical medical didactic education can effectively be conducted remotely through faculty-led lectures and resident-led PBL sessions. Students did not have a preference between in-person and electronic content in preparation for examinations. As scores did not change, electronic education may be adequate for preparing students for examinations in times of crisis such as COVID-19.

Surgical clerkship: Do examination scores correlate with clinical performance?

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine if there are correlations between clinical performance and objective grading parameters for medical students in the third-year surgery clerkship. METHODS: Clerkship grades were compiled from 2016 to 2020. Performance on clinical rotations, NBME shelf exam, oral exam, and weekly quizzes were reviewed. Students were divided into quartiles (Q1-Q4) based on clinical performance. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 625 students included in the study. Students in Q1+Q2 were more likely than those in Q3+Q4 to score in the top quartile on the shelf exam (29% vs. 19%, p = 0.002), oral exam (24% vs. 17%, p = 0.032), and quizzes (22% vs. 15%, p = 0.024). However, there was negligible correlation between clinical performance and performance on objective measures: shelf exam (R2 = 0.027, p < 0.001), oral exam (R2 = 0.021, p < 0.001), and weekly quizzes (R2 = 0.053, p = 0.092). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical performance does not correlate with objective grading parameters for medical students in the third-year surgery clerkship.