Delay in the residents' choice for General and Digestive Surgery: Analysis of the period 2018-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Every year hundreds of medical residents choose their specialization in various surgical fields. However, these numbers have been poorly analyzed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the selection of General and Digestive Surgery by medical residents and compare these results with the selection of other surgical specialties. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study. The data from the selection of the medical residents from surgical specialties and the top 10 most demanded specialties between the years 2018 and 2022 were included. An analysis of adjusted ranking numbers based on the number of available positions was also conducted. RESULTS: The number of available positions in General and Digestive Surgery increased by 17.7% during the study period. However, the selection of our specialty has been delayed, with a median ranking number of 2419 (IQR: 1621-3284) in 2018, and 3484 (IQR: 2306-4156) in 2022 (p: .000). These differences remained significant after adjusting for the number of available positions (p: .000). The choice of Urology, Thoracic Surgery, Cardiovascular Surgery, Gastroenterology, and Paediatrics also declined during this period, while Plastic Surgery, Dermatology, Ophthalmology, Anesthesiology, and Endocrinology improved their numbers. CONCLUSION: The choice of General and Digestive Surgery has been delayed according to the data from the MIR selection of 2018-2022. The increase in the number of available positions has not been associated with a proportional increase in demand.

Interval colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis should not be discouraged yet: results from a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although included in some guidelines, the recommendation of interval colonoscopy after an acute diverticulitis (AD) episode has recently been questioned. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of colon cancer during the follow-up of an episode of AD. METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out of patients with conservatively treated AD at our Institution (January 2011 to December 2018) with or without endoscopic study. Patients who had no colonoscopy performed were followed for two years. The demographic, clinical, radiological, follow-up and anatomopathological records were analysed. We determined CT scan validity for the differential diagnosis of CC and AD; sensibility, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated. Patients lost to follow-up and patients who had had colonoscopy in the previous three years were excluded. RESULTS: This study included 285 patients with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 225 interval colonoscopies were performed and 60 patients without colonoscopy were followed up. There were 19 CC (6.7%) diagnosed, 14 with interval colonoscopy and 5 during follow-up; 8 (42.1%) happened in patients who had had an episode of uncomplicated AD. Although CT scan accuracy is high, 87.7%, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low, 4.67 and 0.64, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interval colonoscopy should still be advisable after an episode of AD. The rationale for this statement is based on a non-negligible rate of hidden CC and an important uncertainty in the differential diagnosis.