Shifting the Surgical Residency Match to a 100% Virtual Interview Format During the COVID-19 Pandemic, How has It Affected Placement Into Surgical Training Programs?

INTRODUCTION: The AAMC transitioned to virtual interview formats for the 2020-2021 residency match. This study aims to examine the impact of the 100% virtual interview format for the 2020-2021 residency match on both application and match changes for multiple surgical specialties, including neurosurgery (NS), orthopedic surgery (OS), plastic surgery (PS), general surgery (GS), thoracic surgery (TS), and vascular surgery (VS). METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing application and match changes between the in-person 2019-2020 and virtual 2020-2021 residency match cycles for different surgical specialties. RESULTS: There was an overall increase in the number of applicants for 5 of the surgery specialties but not VS, and an overall increase in the number of applications per residency program across all specialties. The average number of applications per applicant also increased, except in TS. There were no major match changes except in TS, which saw an increase in number of spots filled by MDs to nearly 100% from 84.2% in the previous cycle. CONCLUSION: The switch to the 100% virtual 2020-2021 residency match interview format was associated with an overall increase in the number of applications per program and number of applications per applicant across multiple surgical specialties. There was a decrease in the number of applicants to VS and an increase in the number of applications per applicant. The switch to a virtual interview format in 2020-2021 was also associated with an increase in TS spots filled by MDs to almost 98%, increasing the already concerning TS match disparity for DO and IMG applicants.

Indications and Recommendations for Tracheostomy in Trauma Population With COVID-19 Infection: A Review of the Literature.

This review explores the current body of evidence pertaining to tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 seropositive patients and summarizes the research by tracheostomy indications, timing, and procedure. Literature review was performed in accordance with the 2020 PRISMA guidelines and includes 12 papers discussing protocols for adult patients seropositive for COVID-19. The studies demonstrated high mortality rates after tracheostomy, especially in geriatric patients, and suggested a multifactorial determination of whether to perform a tracheostomy. There was inconclusive data regarding wait time between testing seropositive, tracheostomy, and weaning off of ventilation. COVID-19 generally reaches highest infectivity between days 9 and 10; furthermore, high early mortality rates seen in COVID-19 may confound mortality implicated by tracheostomy placement. Due to the aerosol-generating nature of tracheostomy placement, management and maintenance, techniques, equipment, and personnel should be carefully considered and altered for COVID-19 patients. With surgical tracheostomy, literature suggested decreased usage of electrocautery; with percutaneous tracheostomy, single-use bronchoscope should be used. The nonemergent exchange of tracheostomy should be done only after the patient tested negative for COVID-19. Placement of tracheostomy should only be considered in COVID-19 patients who are no longer transmissible, with rigorous attention to safety precautions. Understanding procedures for airway maintenance in a respiratory disease like COVID-19 is imperative, especially due to current shortages in ventilators and PPE. However, because of a lack of available data and its likelihood of change as more data emerges, we lack complete guidelines for tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 seropositive patients, and those existing will likely evolve with the disease.

A Closer Look at the Rising Epidemic of Mass Shootings in the United States and Its Association With Gun Legislation, Laws, and Sales.

INTRODUCTION: Mass shootings pose a considerable threat to public safety and significantly cost the United States in terms of lives and expenses. The following are the specific aims of this study: (1) to assess US mass shootings, firearm-related sales, laws, and regional differences from 2015 to 2021 and (2) to investigate changes in mass shootings and firearm sales before and during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of mass shootings, gun sales, and laws regarding the minimum age required to purchase a firearm within the United States from 2015 to 2021. The 10 states/regions with the greatest mean mass shootings/capita from 2015 to 2021 were selected for further analysis. RESULTS: Mass shootings correlated significantly with firearm sales from 2015 to 2021 nationwide (P < 0.02 for all). The growth in mass shootings, the number killed/injured, and gun sales were greater in 2020 and 2021 compared to the years prior. The 10 states with the highest mean mass shooting/capita over the study period were Alabama, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee. No significant correlation was found between the number of mass shootings/capita and the minimum age to purchase a firearm. CONCLUSIONS: Firearm sales correlated significantly with mass shootings from 2015 to 2021. Mass shootings and gun sales increased at greater rates during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic compared to the years before the pandemic. Mass shootings exhibited inconsistent trends with state gun laws regarding the minimum age to purchase a firearm. Future studies may consider investigating the methods by which firearms used in mass shootings are obtained to further identify targets for prevention.

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process.

BACKGROUND: Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy. METHODS: A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population. RESULTS: A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies. CONCLUSIONS: Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

Trends of Cancer Screenings, Diagnoses, and Mortalities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications and Future Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screenings and care has yet to be determined. This study aims to investigate the screening, diagnosis, and mortality rates of the top five leading causes of cancer mortality in the United States from 2019 to 2021 to determine the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on screening, diagnoses, and mortality rates of the top five leading causes of cancer death (lung/bronchus, colon/rectum, pancreas, breast, and prostate), as determined by the National Institute of Health (NIH) utilizing The United States Healthcare Cost Institute and American Cancer Society databases from 2019 to 2021. RESULTS: Screenings decreased by 24.98% for colorectal cancer and 16.01% for breast cancer from 2019 to 2020. Compared to 2019, there was a .29% increase in lung/bronchus, 19.72% increase in colorectal, 1.46% increase in pancreatic, 2.89% increase in breast, and 144.50% increase in prostate cancer diagnoses in 2020 (all P < .01). There was an increase in the total number of deaths from colorectal, pancreatic, breast, and prostate cancers from 2019 to 2021. CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in the screening rates for breast and colorectal cancer, along with an increase in the estimated incidence and mortality rate among the five leading causes of cancer deaths from 2019 to 2021. The findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with impaired cancer screening, diagnosis, and care, and further emphasizes the need for proactive screening and follow-up to prevent subsequent cancer morbidity and mortality.