Comparing resident operative volumes for routine general surgery cases at academic, urban community, and rural training sites.

BACKGROUND: Surgical training traditionally took place at academic centres, but changed to incorporate community and rural hospitals. As little data exist comparing resident case volumes between these locations, the objective of this study was to determine variations in these volumes for routine general surgery procedures. METHODS: We analyzed senior resident case logs from 2009 to 2019 from a general surgery residency program. We classified training centres as academic, community, and rural. Cases included appendectomy, cholecystectomy, hernia repair, bowel resection, adhesiolysis, and stoma formation or reversal. We matched procedures to blocks based on date of case and compared groups using a Poisson mixed-methods model and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 85 residents and 28 532 cases. Postgraduate year (PGY) 3 residents at academic sites performed 10.9 (95% CI 10.1-11.6) cases per block, which was fewer than 14.7 (95% CI 13.6-15.9) at community and 15.3 (95% CI 14.2-16.5) at rural sites. Fourth-year residents (PGY4) showed a greater difference, with academic residents performing 8.7 (95% CI 8.0-9.3) cases per block compared with 23.7 (95% CI 22.1-25.4) in the community and 25.6 (95% CI 23.6-27.9) at rural sites. This difference continued in PGY5, with academic residents performing 8.3 (95% CI 7.3-9.3) cases per block, compared with 18.9 (95% CI 16.8-21.0) in the community and 14.5 (95% CI 7.0-21.9) at rural sites. CONCLUSION: Senior residents performed fewer routine cases at academic sites than in community and rural centres. Programs can use these data to optimize scheduling for struggling residents who require exposure to routine cases, and help residents complete the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum.

Outcomes of liver transplant recipients with high MELD scores: an experience from a Canadian centre.

BACKGROUND: The frequency with which patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores undergo liver transplantation has been increasing. Canadian literature regarding the outcomes of liver transplantation in recipients with high MELD scores is limited. The primary objective of this study was to assess patient and graft survival among recipients with high (> 35) and low (≤ 35) MELD scores. Secondary objectives were to potentially identify independent predictors of graft failure and patient mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing liver transplantation at a single Canadian centre from 2012 to 2017. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were included in the study: 280 patients had a MELD score of 35 or lower, and 52 had a MELD score above 35. Patients with high MELD scores had higher rates of pretransplant acute kidney injury and dialysis (p < 0.001), admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or intubation (p < 0.001), intraoperative blood product transfusions (p < 0.001) and post-transplantation acute kidney injury and dialysis (p < 0.001), as well as longer ICU (p < 0.001) and hospital stays (p = 0.002). One- and 3-year patient survival in recipients with MELD scores of 35 or lower was 93.1% and 84.9% versus 85.0% and 80.0% in recipients with MELD scores above 35 (p = 0.37). One- and 3-year graft survival in recipients with MELD scores of 35 or lower was 91.7% and 90.9% versus 77.2% and 72.8% in recipients with MELD scores above 35 (p < 0.001). Prior liver transplant was an independent predictor of patient mortality, and no independent predictors of graft failure were identified. When MELD was replaced with D-MELD (donor age × recipient MELD), it predicted graft failure but not patient survival. CONCLUSION: No difference in patient mortality was found between MELD groups. Graft survival was significantly lower in recipients with MELD scores above 35. D-MELD may potentially be used as an adjunct in determining risk of graft failure in recipients with high MELD scores.