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.

Increasing lengths of rank order lists of applicants and programs of US medical residencies.

BACKGROUND: To match medical students into residency training programs, both the program and student create rank order lists (ROLs). We aim to investigate temporal trends in ROL lengths across 7 match cycles between 2014 and 2021 for both matched and unmatched residency applicants and programs. METHODS: retrospective study of ROLs of 7 match cycles, 2014-2021. Residency match and ROL data were extracted from the NRMP database to assess the number of programs filled and unfilled, length of ROLs, position matched, and average ranks per position for osteopathic (DO) and allopathic (MD) medical programs. RESULTS: For filled residency programs, the average ROL length consistently increased from 70.72 in 2015 to 88.73 in 2021 (P = .003), with ROL lengths consistently longer for filled vs unfilled residency programs (P < .001). The average ROL length for matched applicants increased consistently from 10.41 in 2015 to 12.35 in 2021 (P = .002), with matched applicants having consistently longer ROLs than unmatched applicants (P < .001). From 2015 to 2021, in both MD and DO applicants, progressively lower proportions of applicants matched their first and second choices. CONCLUSION: Trends across the past 7 residency match cycles suggest that ROL lengths for both programs and applicants have been increasing with matched programs and applicants submitting significantly longer ROLs than unmatched applicants. Additionally, fewer applicants are matching at their preferred programs over time. Our findings support the mounting evidence that the Match has become increasingly congested and we discuss the possible factors that may be contributing to the current state of the Match as well as potential solutions.

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.

The Role of Pericardial Window Techniques in the Management of Penetrating Cardiac Injuries in the Hemodynamically Stable Patient: Where Does It Fit in the Current Trauma Algorithm?

INTRODUCTION: Penetrating cardiac injuries (PCIs) have high in-hospital mortality rates. Guidelines regarding the use of pericardial window (PW) for diagnosis and treatment of suspected PCIs are not universally established. The objective of this review was to provide a critical appraisal of the current literature to determine the effectiveness and safety of PW as both a diagnostic and therapeutic technique for suspected PCIs in patients with hemodynamic stability. METHODS: A review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase to identify literature evaluating the accuracy and therapeutic efficacy of PW and its role in a hemodynamically stable patient with penetrating thoracic or thoracoabdominal trauma. RESULTS: Eleven studies evaluating diagnostic PW and two studies evaluating therapeutic PW were included. These studies ranged from (y) 1977 to 2018. Existing literature indicates that PW is highly sensitive (92%-100%) and specific (96%-100%) for the diagnosis of suspected PCIs. PW and drainage, when compared with sternotomy, may be associated with decreased total hospital stay (4.1 versus 6.5 d; P < 0.001) and intensive care unit stay (0.25 versus 2.04 d; P < 0.001) along with similar mortality and complication rates after the management of hemopericardium. CONCLUSIONS: In a hemodynamically stable patient presenting with penetrating cardiac trauma with a high suspicion for PCI, PWs can (1) facilitate prompt diagnosis in the event of equivocal ultrasonography findings and (2) serve as an effective therapeutic modality with the benefit of potentially avoiding more invasive procedures. Subxiphoid, transdiaphragmatic, and laparoscopic approaches for PW have been shown to have similar efficacy and safety.

Broken bones, broken minds, and broken hearts: Psychotrauma resources for pediatric non-accidental trauma survivors - Editorial.

•The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) assessment is not meant for an acute trauma and is administered to assess PTSD symptoms experienced over the past month. This screening tool is indicated for children ages 7 or above, which spans a wider age range than does the PHQ-9.•It is difficult to say how widely available psycho-trauma resources are in the acute care setting at PTCs. However, the literature demonstrates the importance of immediate, adequate psychologic care for pediatric trauma cases.•We hope that trauma centers moving forward, stop only healing the broken bones and start healing the broken bones, the broken minds, and comforting the broken hearts.

Major and minor surgery: Terms used for hundreds of years that have yet to be defined.

•The terms major and minor surgery are commonly used in scientific literature. The lack of an established distinction between the two terms has major implications on the interpretation of research, clinical practices, and outcomes.•Researchers should be cautious when using major and minor surgery to describe procedures unless accompanied by a thorough evidence-based explanation of each category.•The terminology may be useful for setting the tone of expectations when communicating with patients and their families, but physicians must weigh this utility against the complications caused by unsuitable use in scientific literature and medical education.