Military deployment's impact on the surgeon's practice.

BACKGROUND: As the United States withdraws from overseas conflicts, general surgeons remain deployed in support of global operations. Surgeons and surgical teams are foundational to combat casualty care; however, currently, there are few casualty producing events. Low surgical volume and acuity can have detrimental effects on surgical readiness for those frequently deployed. The surgical team cycle of deployment involves predeployment training, drawdown of clinical practice, deployment, postdeployment reintegration, and rebuilding of a patient panel. This study aims to assess these effects on typical general surgeon practices. Quantifying the overall impact of deployment may help refine and implement measures to mitigate the effects on skill retention and patient care. METHODS: Surgeon case logs of eligible surgeons deploying between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020, were included from participating military treatment facilities. Eligible surgeons were surgeons whose case logs were primarily at a single military treatment facility 26 weeks before and after deployment and whose deployment duration, location, and number of deployed cases were obtainable. RESULTS: Starting 26 weeks prior to deployment, analyzing in 1-week intervals toward deployment time, case count decreased by 4.8% (p < 0.0001). With each 1-week interval, postdeployment up to the 26-week mark, case count increased by 6% (p < 0.0001). Cases volumes most prominently drop 3 weeks prior to deployment and do not reach normal levels until approximately 7 weeks postdeployment. Case volumes were similar across service branches. CONCLUSION: There is a significant decrease in the number of cases performed before deployment and increase after return regardless of military branch. The perideployment surgical volume decline should be understood and mitigated appropriately; predeployment training, surgical skill retention, and measures to safely reintegrate surgeons back into their practice should be further developed and implemented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Decision, Level III.

Objective comparison of animal training versus artificial simulation for initial cricothyroidotomy training.

This manuscript aims to determine if there is a difference in performance outcomes after initial training with either animals or simulators. Volunteers without prior experience performing emergency procedures were randomly assigned to receive training in cricothyroidotomy on either a pig model or on an artificial simulator. Volunteers were given identical lectures and trained to proficiency. Two weeks after training, trainees were tested using human cadavers as to their performance with time, incision size, incision start location, initial placement attempt, and final accuracy. Overall success rate of the animal-trained group was 64 per cent and in the artificial simulator group, 73 per cent (P = 0.431). Median time to completion in the animal group and artificial simulator group was 143 s and 105 s (P = 0.482), and incision lengths 4.0 cm and 3.2 cm (P = 0.173), respectively. Accuracy of initially attempted incision placement and final cricothyroidotomy tube placement was also compared. Initially attempted site accuracy in the animal-trained group was 93 per cent and correct final position 79 per cent, and in the artificial group, 100 per cent (P = 0.452) and 88 per cent (P = 0.782), respectively. There was no statistically significant, objective difference in any metric between animal- and simulator-trained groups after cricothyroidotomy training. For initial training, there is no objective benefit of animal training.