Gender Related Differences in Surgeon Compensation: Survey Results from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the effect of sex on compensation among colorectal surgeons and to determine which factors contribute to gender-based differences in compensation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The sex-based wage gap in the medical profession is among the most pronounced wage gaps in the U.S. Data regarding the wage gap among colorectal surgeons and the underlying reasons for this disparity remain unclear. METHODS: The Healthcare Economics Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons conducted a survey to evaluate surgeon demographics, compensation, and practice characteristics. To evaluate the effect of sex on compensation, we performed multivariable linear regression with backward selection. We used a two-sided P -value with a significance threshold <0.05. RESULTS: The mean difference in normalized total compensation between men and women was $46,250, and when salary was adjusted for FTEs, the difference was $57,000. Women were more likely to perform anorectal surgery, less likely to perform general surgery and less likely to hold positions in leadership. After adjustments, women reported significantly lower compensation (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). Time spent doing abdominal surgery (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.23), professor status (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.32) and instructor status (aOR, 1.49; 95% 1.28-1.73) were independently associated with compensation. CONCLUSIONS: We found a 12% adjusted sex wage gap among colorectal surgeons. Gender-based differences in leadership positions and allocation of effort may contribute. Further research will be necessary to clarify sources of wage inequalities. Still, our results should prompt expedient actions to support closing the gap.

Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin Allergy on Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Surgical Site Infection Among Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections are a major preventable source of morbidity, mortality, and increased health care expenditures after colorectal surgery. Patients with penicillin allergy may not receive the recommended preoperative antibiotics, putting them at increased risk for surgical site infections. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of patient-reported penicillin allergy on preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical site infection rates among patients undergoing major colon and rectal procedures. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Dallas. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing colectomy or proctectomy between July 2012 and July 2019 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were preoperative antibiotic choice and surgical site infection. RESULTS: Among 2198 patients included in the study, 12.26% (n = 307) reported a penicillin allergy. Patients with penicillin allergy were more likely to be white (82%) and female (54%; p < 0.01). The most common type of allergic reaction reported was rash (36.5%), whereas 7.2% of patients reported anaphylaxis. Patients with self-reported penicillin allergy were less likely to receive beta-lactam antibiotics than patients who did not report a penicillin allergy (79.8% vs 96.7%, p < 0.001). Overall, 143 (6.5%) patients had surgical site infections. On multivariable logistic regression, there was no difference in rates of surgical site infection between patients with penicillin allergy vs those without penicillin allergy (adjusted OR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71-1.82). LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study was its retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported penicillin allergy among patients undergoing colorectal surgery is common; however, only a small number of these patients report any serious adverse reactions. Patients with self-reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive beta-lactam antibiotics and more likely to receive non-beta-lactam antibiotics. However, this does not affect the rate of surgical site infection among these patients, and these patients can be safely prescribed non-beta-lactam antibiotics without negatively impacting surgical site infection rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B838 .IMPACTO DE LA ALERGIA A LA PENICILINA INFORMADA POR EL PACIENTE EN LA PROFILAXIS ANTIBIÓTICA Y LA INFECCIÓN DEL SITIO OPERATORIO ENTRE PACIENTES DE CIRUGÍA COLORECTAL. ANTECEDENTES: Las infecciones del sitio operatorio son una de las principales fuentes prevenibles de morbilidad, mortalidad y aumento del gasto sanitario después de cirugía colorrectal. Es posible que los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina no reciban los antibióticos preoperatorios recomendados, lo que los pone en mayor riesgo de infecciones en el sitio operatorio. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la alergia a la penicilina informada por el paciente sobre la profilaxis antibiótica preoperatoria y las tasas de infección del sitio operatorio entre pacientes sometidos a procedimientos mayores de colon y recto. DISEO: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Hospital universitario terciario en Dallas. PACIENTES: Adultos sometidos a colectomía o proctectomía entre julio de 2012 a julio de 2019. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE DESENLACE: Elección de antibióticos preoperatorios e infección del sitio operatorio. RESULTADOS: Entre los 2198 pacientes incluidos en el estudio, el 12,26% (n = 307) informó alergia a la penicilina. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina tenían más probabilidades de ser blancos (82%) y mujeres (54%) ( p < 0,01). El tipo más común de reacción alérgica notificada fue erupción cutánea (36,5%), mientras que el 7,2% de los pacientes notificó anafilaxia. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina autoinformada tenían menos probabilidades de recibir antibióticos betalactámicos en comparación con los pacientes que no informaron alergia a la penicilina (79,8% frente a 96,7%, p < 0,001). En general, hubo 143 (6,5%) pacientes con infecciones del sitio operatorio. En la regresión logística multivariable no hubo diferencias en las tasas de infección del sitio operatorio entre los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina frente a los que no tenían alergia a la penicilina (razón de probabilidades ajustada 1,14; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,71-1,82). LIMITACIONES: Diseño de estudio retrospectivo. CONCLUSIONES: La alergia a la penicilina autoinformada entre los pacientes de cirugía colorrectal es común, sin embargo, solo un pequeño número de estos pacientes informan reacciones adversas graves. Los pacientes con alergia a la penicilina autoinformada tienen menos probabilidades de recibir antibióticos betalactámicos y más probabilidades de recibir antibióticos no betalactámicos. Sin embargo, esto no afecta la tasa de infección del sitio quirúrgico entre estos pacientes y se les puede recetar de forma segura con antibióticos no betalactámicos sin afectar negativamente las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B838 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Surgical Leadership.

There are few topics of more importance in health care today than surgical leadership. The surgical leader will need to organize and maintain a collective effort if the organization is going to be effective. Health care teams work in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous ecosystem. Therefore, surgeons must develop skills beyond the operating room. The facilitative leader will lead from the middle, not the top. They will empower coworkers to participate in creating a vision by building consensus, developing teams, clarifying roles, and earning the loyalty and trust of their colleagues. Surgical leaders will use communication as the vehicle for their success, including intentional listening, asking open-ended questions, and creating dialog instead of argumentative exchanges. The future of health care belongs to the physicians who are investing the time and effort today to become leaders.

Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence for Laparoscopic Resection Compared With Open Resection of Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: Follow-up Results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence after the treatment of patients with rectal cancer with open (OPEN) or laparoscopic (LAP) resection. BACKGROUND: This randomized clinical trial (ACOSOG [Alliance] Z6051), performed between 2008 and 2013, compared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The rectum and mesorectum were resected using open instruments for rectal dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum. The 2-year DFS and recurrence were secondary endpoints of Z6051. METHODS: The DFS and recurrence were not powered, and are being assessed for superiority. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter, using carcinoembryonic antigen, physical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy. In all, 486 patients were randomized to LAP (243) or OPEN (243), with 462 eligible for analysis (LAP = 240 and OPEN = 222). Median follow-up is 47.9 months. RESULTS: The 2-year DFS was LAP 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.4-84.9) and OPEN 83.2% (95% CI 78.3-88.3). Local and regional recurrence was 4.6% LAP and 4.5% OPEN. Distant recurrence was 14.6% LAP and 16.7% OPEN.Disease-free survival was impacted by unsuccessful resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.21-2.91): composite of incomplete specimen (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85-3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.79); positive distal margin (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30-3.77). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrence.

Robotic versus laparoscopic elective colectomy for left side diverticulitis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the NSQIP database.

PURPOSE: Robotic surgery might have an advantage over conventional laparoscopy for colonic diverticulitis. We intend to compare both approaches in the elective management of left side diverticulitis. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2012-2014) was surveyed for patients undergoing elective left/sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, disease complexity, and intraoperative details were matched on propensity scores derived from logistic regression model. RESULTS: We identified 441 robotic and 6584 laparoscopic cases. Mean age was 56.8 years. Mean BMI was 29.5, and 46.5% of patients were males. Low preoperative albumin (< 3.5 mg/dl, 11.1% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.003), splenectomy (0.45% vs. 0.05%, p = 0.002), and enterotomy repair (1.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.029) were higher in the robotic group than the laparoscopic group. Hand assistance (35.8% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.003), splenic flexure takedown (41.5% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.002), and ureteric stent placement (18.6% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.017) were less common in the robotic group than the laparoscopic group. Case-matched analysis showed that robotic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stay (3.89 ± 2.18 days vs. 4.75 ± 3.25 days, p < 0.001), lower conversion rate (7.5% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.001), and longer operative time (219.2 ± 95.6 min vs. 188.8 ± 82.3 min, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic approach was associated with lower overall morbidity in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55-0.96), but not in case-matched analysis (14.4% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower conversion rate and may offer lower overall morbidity than laparoscopy after elective left side colectomy for diverticulitis. Controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

High Rate of Positive Circumferential Resection Margins Following Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Call to Action.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of positive circumferential resection margin following rectal cancer resection in the United States. BACKGROUND: Positive circumferential resection margin is associated with a high rate of local recurrence and poor morbidity and mortality for rectal cancer patients. Prior study has shown poor compliance with national rectal cancer guidelines, but whether this finding is reflected in patient outcomes has yet to be shown. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection for stage I-III rectal cancer were identified from the 2010-2011 National Cancer Database. The primary outcome was a positive circumferential resection margin. The relationship between patient, hospital, tumor, and treatment-related characteristics was analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A positive circumferential resection margin was noted in 2859 (17.2%) of the 16,619 patients included. Facility location, clinical T and N stage, histologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, type of operation, and operative approach were significant predictors of positive circumferential resection margin on multivariable analysis. Total proctectomy had nearly a 30% increased risk of positive margin compared with partial proctectomy (OR 1.293, 95%CI 1.185-1.411) and a laparoscopic approach had nearly 22% less risk of a positive circumferential resection margin compared with an open approach (OR 0.882, 95%CI 0.790-0.985). CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in surgical technique and multimodality therapy, rates of positive circumferential resection margin remain high in the United States. Several tumor and treatment characteristics were identified as independent risk factors, and advances in rectal cancer care are necessary to approach the outcomes seen in other countries.

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection. INTERVENTIONS: Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

Sixth Annual Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Symposium highlights: work in progress or standard care?

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated effectiveness in accelerating patient recovery and improving outcomes. Since the systemwide implementation of ERAS protocols at Baylor Scott & White Health, an annual multidisciplinary conference has provided a review of outcomes and advancements in the ERAS program. This meeting, coined the ERAS symposium, allows providers who utilize recovery protocols to collaborate with national and international leaders in the field to improve the clinical care of patients. The sixth annual ERAS symposium was held on February 10, 2023, and provided key presentations that discussed the latest results from ERAS efforts across multiple surgical specialties along with updates in anesthesia, nursing, and nutrition. A summary of those presentations, which included perioperative glycemic control, misconceptions in pain management, and emerging ERAS protocols in different surgical specialties, is provided to document the system progress.

Impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery program with a multimodal analgesia care pathway on opioid prescribing and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Background: Opioids are a mainstay for acute pain management, but their side effects can adversely impact patient recovery. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) is recommended for treatment of postoperative pain and has been incorporated in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. The objective of this quality improvement study was to implement an MMA care pathway as part of an ERAS program for colorectal surgery and to measure the effect of this intervention on patient outcomes and costs. Methods: This pre-post study included 856 adult inpatients who underwent an elective colorectal surgery at three hospitals within an integrated healthcare system. The impact of ERAS program implementation on opioid prescribing practices, outcomes, and costs was examined after adjusting for clinical and demographic confounders. Results: Improvements were seen in MMA compliance (34.0% vs 65.5%, P < 0.0001) and ERAS compliance (50.4% vs 57.6%, P < 0.0001). Reductions in mean days on opioids (4.2 vs 3.2), daily (51.6 vs 33.4 mg) and total (228.8 vs 112.7 mg) morphine milligram equivalents given during hospitalization, and risk-adjusted length of stay (4.3 vs 3.6 days, P < 0.05) were also observed. Conclusions: Implementing ERAS programs that include MMA care pathways as standard of care may result in more judicious use of opioids and reduce patient recovery time.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) can be safely performed through a minimally invasive approach by experienced surgeons and may offer patients benefit in certain short-term outcomes. Long-term oncologic outcomes and meta-analysis of the most recent randomized controlled trials may offer additional clarity regarding the role of laparoscopic TME and those patients for whom the approach is most appropriate. Until then, laparoscopic TME should be used judiciously. As the landscape of rectal cancer surgery evolves, the necessary constant needs to be multidisciplinary oversight of rectal cancer surgery performed by surgeons and surgical centers experienced in this critically important procedure.

A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence. RESULTS: At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups--16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P=0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer in the elderly.

Recent published trials have failed to demonstrate that laparoscopic resection is not inferior to open resection of rectal cancer in terms of pathologic outcomes. However, there have been numerous studies showing the benefit of laparoscopic resection in terms of short-term complications and quality of life. Fewer complications and shorter hospital stays improve the chance of maintaining functional status, which is very important for the elderly population. Thus, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer remains a viable option for the elderly.