Influence of Applicant Interview Format Choice on Demographics and Outcomes from the Residency Match.

BACKGROUND: Studies of virtual interviews (VI) for residency lack contemporaneous In-person Interview (IPI) comparators, leaving uncertain the impact of interview mode on the match process. The study aims to evaluate the effect of allowing candidates to choose interview format, the VI versus IPI, on demographic characteristics of candidates and on rank order list (ROL) position. STUDY DESIGN: A Cohort study of residency applicants (2022-2023 recruiting season) to a general surgery training program. 105 applicants were invited for interview, of whom 84 candidates were interviewed. Invited candidates were allowed to choose between the following interview options: 1) In person only, 2) Virtual only, 3) In person, but would accept virtual, 4) Virtual, but would accept in-person, and 5) No preference/either. The main outcomes were the differences in demographics of candidates and relative ROL position based on interview format. RESULTS: Most candidates preferred VI (63%), while 26% preferred IPI and 11% had no preference. 43 VI and 41 IPI were conducted. VI candidates were more likely female (62.8% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.004), attended more distant medical schools (609 [207.5, 831] miles vs. 161 [51, 228] miles, p < 0.001), had higher USMLE scores, and better letters of recommendation. IPI candidates were more likely to have signaled interest (19.5% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.037) and were scored higher for interest in the program/area (4.34 ± 0.48 vs. 4.00 ± 0.62, p = 0.007). The format of interview was not associated with ultimate rank position by either univariate or multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Among applicants for residency training positions, allowing a choice of interview format was associated with significant demographic and academic differences between those interviewing virtually versus in-person but had little ultimate effect on ROL position.

Prophylactic Enoxaparin Dosing Using Anti-Factor Xa Levels in Hepatic Surgery Patients: A Pilot Study.

This study examines the safety and efficacy of using peak anti-Xa levels to achieve prophylactic enoxaparin (Lovenox, Sanofi-Aventis) levels in patients who underwent hepatic surgery. Prospectively enrolled patients undergoing major and minor hepatic procedures received postoperative enoxaparin dosing. The enoxaparin dose was adjusted to attain a peak anti-Xa level ≥ 0.20 U/ml. This group was compared to a historical cohort of patients who underwent similar procedures and received standard postoperative VTE chemoprophylaxis dosing. Inpatient postoperative VTE rates were higher in the control group when compared to the experimental group (0 patients [0.00%] vs 4 patients [8.16%]; P = .035). There was no statistically significant difference in number of postoperative blood transfusions, discharge hemoglobin, or in-hospital bleeding events. Adjusting enoxaparin dosing to achieve prophylactic peak anti-Xa levels of ≥0.20 IU/ml was associated with a reduced incidence of symptomatic inpatient postoperative VTE in patients who underwent hepatic surgery without increasing postoperative bleeding events.

A Cohort Study of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Pancreatic Surgery at a Community Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to improve pancreatic surgery outcomes, though feasibility in a community hospital remain unclear. We hypothesized that an ERAS protocol would reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) without increased morbidity. METHODS: An ERAS pathway was initiated for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at a community cancer center and compared to a historical cohort. The primary outcome was hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rates, comprehensive complication index (CCI®), textbook outcomes (TO), and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were included, with 63 patients in the ERAS group and 81 in the control group. The mean LOS decreased significantly in the ERAS group (6.85 [± 4.8]) vs 9.96 [±6.8] days, P = .001), without an increase in 30-day admission rates or CCI. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS protocol in a community setting reduced LOS without a corresponding increase in readmission rates or morbidity.

Are There Racial Differences in the Rate of Surgical Site Infection Based on Surgical Subspecialty?

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common, morbid post-operative complication. We hypothesized the presence of racial differences in SSI rates, comparing black/African American (BAA) to white non-Hispanic (WNH) patients. Patients and Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2017), BAA and WNH surgery patients across 10 surgical specialties were identified: general surgery (GS), vascular surgery (VS), cardiac surgery (CS), thoracic surgery (TS), orthopedics (OS), neurosurgery (NS), urology (US), otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery (PS), and gynecology (GYN). The primary outcome was SSI rate (superficial, deep incisional, or organ/space). The secondary outcome was rate of non-surgical infection. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to test group differences of categorical variables. Continuous variables were tested with the Student t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test, with statistical significance set at a value of p < 0.05. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to analyze the association between race/ethnicity and the infection outcomes. Results: A total of 740,144 patients were included: 99,425 (13.4%) BAA and 640,749 (86.6%) WNH, distributed as follows; 32,2976 GS, 17,6175 OS, 44,383 VS, 2,227 CS, 9,645 TS, 42,298 NS, 42,726 US, 18,518 ENT, 20,709 PS, and 60,517 GYN cases. Surgical site infection rates were higher among WNH in GS (4.4% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.003) and TS (3.1% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.015); lower in VS (3.2% vs. 4.4%; p < 0.001), OS (1.2% vs.1.6%; p < 0.001), and GYN (2.4% vs. 3%; p < 0.001); and similar between WNH and BAA in ENT (1.8% vs 1.8%; p = 0.76), and US (1.9% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.90). Non-surgical infection was higher in BAA in NS (3.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.003), and higher in WNH in GYN (2.6% vs. 2%; p < 0.001), OS (1.7% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001), US (4.4% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.014), and VS (3.4% vs. 2.6%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Variation exists in SSI rates between WNH and BAA patients among surgical subspecialties. Further research is required to understand these differences and address racial disparities in outcomes.

Local anesthesia as an alternative option in repair of recurrent groin hernias: An outcome study from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP® database.

INTRODUCTION: There is a dearth of data about the benefits of local anesthesia (LA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) compared to general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing repair of recurrent groin (inguinal/femoral) hernias. We hypothesized that patients with recurrent hernias who undergo repair under LA and SA will have a better outcome. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Using the 2017 American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)® database, patients who underwent open repair of recurrent groin hernias were identified and divided into three groups: GA, SA, and LA. Outcomes evaluated included 30-day mortality and morbidity, operative time, total hospital length of stay (LOS), and reoperation and readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 2169 patients were identified of which 1847 (85.2%) were in GA, 53 (2.4%) in SA, and 269 (12.4%) in LA groups. Overall, no statistically significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the three groups were identified. However, patients in GA were younger and healthier with lower ASA Class (I-II) as compared to SA and LA groups. Patients in SA had a higher rate of COPD, and their overall operative time was shorter. However, LA patients had shorter LOS, and most LA patients were discharged home on the same day compared to GA, SA (92.2% vs. 77.9%, and 73.6%, p < 0.001). No differences in 30-day mortality and morbidity or reoperation and readmission rates between the three groups were noted. CONCLUSION: There is an underutilization of LA in patients undergoing open repair of recurrent inguinal hernia despite favorable outcomes, even in high-risk patients, when compared to GA and SA. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the potential barriers and cost-effectiveness of implementing LA as a primary anesthetic technique in inguinal hernia repair.