Diminishing Basic Science Research Experience Among United States Cardiothoracic Surgery Trainees.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing concern regarding the attrition of surgeon-scientists. To understand the decline of basic science research (BSR), it is essential to examine trends in research conducted by trainees. We hypothesized that, over recent decades, cardiothoracic (CT) surgery trainees have published fewer BSR articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT surgeons at United States training institutions in 2020 who completed training in the past three decades, excluding international trainees, were analyzed (1991-2000: n = 148; 2001-2010: n = 228; 2011-2020: n = 247). Publication records were obtained from Scopus. Articles with medical subject heading terms involving molecular/cellular or animal research were classified as BSR using the National Institutes of Health iCite Translation module. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: While the proportion of surgeons who published a first-author paper during training remained stable over the past two decades (178/228 [78.1%] versus 189/247 [76.5%], P = 0.7427), the proportion who published a first-author BSR paper decreased significantly (135/228 [59.2%] versus 96/247 [38.9%], P < 0.0001). Among surgeons who published a first-author paper in training, the total papers published by each trainee did not change over the past two decades (3.5 versus 3.3 first-author papers per 10 y of training, P = 0.8819). However, the number of BSR papers published during training decreased significantly (1.7 versus 0.8 first-author papers per 10 y of training, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: CT surgery trainees are publishing fewer BSR papers. Additional efforts are needed to increase exposure of trainees to BSR and reaffirm that BSR is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit for academic surgeons.

Analyzing the Scholarly Impact of Cardiothoracic Surgery Research Using the Relative Citation Ratio.

INTRODUCTION: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently developed the relative citation ratio (RCR), calculated as article citations benchmarked to NIH-funded publications in the same field. Here, we characterized the scholarly impact of academic cardiothoracic (CT) surgeons and their research using the RCR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a database of 992 CT surgeons, we calculated the RCR for all articles published by each surgeon since 1980 using the NIH iCite database. All data were collected from publicly available online sources. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or as odds ratios (ORs) for multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Where RCR 1.00 indicates equal impact as an NIH-funded publication, the RCR among all 37,402 CT surgery articles was 0.84 (0.33-1.83) and the RCR among NIH-funded CT surgery articles was 1.07 (0.53-2.17). CT surgeons exhibited a career median RCR of 0.82 (0.54-1.13) and maximum RCR of 6.20 (3.04-13.57). Predictors of career median RCR >1.00 included female gender (OR 2.23, P = 0.001), thoracic subspecialization (OR 2.50, P < 0.001), full professor rank (OR 1.89, P = 0.001), and NIH funding (OR 1.75, P = 0.001). Predictors of career maximum RCR >50th percentile among CT surgeons included male gender (OR 1.87, P = 0.030), thoracic subspecialization (OR 2.05, P < 0.001), full professor rank (OR 4.89, P < 0.001), NIH funding (OR 3.17, P < 0.001), and career duration (OR 1.03, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first assessment of the NIH-validated RCR for academic CT surgery. CT surgery research is highly impactful, although gender disparities persist with respect to the highest-impact research of our specialty.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is frequently performed for acute cholecystitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. Considerable variation in the execution of key steps of the operation remains. We conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding best practices for critical intraoperative steps for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: We identified 5 main intraoperative decision points in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: (1) number and position of laparoscopic ports; (2) identification of cystic artery and duct; (3) division of cystic artery and duct; (4) indications for subtotal cholecystectomy; and (5) retrieval of the gallbladder. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were queried for relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were included for analysis, and evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Fifty-two articles were included. Although all port configurations were comparable from a safety standpoint, fewer ports sometimes resulted in improved cosmesis or decreased pain but longer operative times. The critical view of safety should be obtained for identification of the cystic duct and artery but may be obtained through fundus-first dissection and augmented with cholangiography or ultrasound. Insufficient evidence exists to compare harmonic-shear, clipless ligation against clip ligation of the cystic duct and artery. Stump closure during subtotal cholecystectomy may reduce rates of bile leak and reoperation. Use of retrieval bag for gallbladder extraction results in minimal benefit. Most studies were underpowered to detect differences in incidence of rare complications. Conclusion: Key operative steps of laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be informed by both compiled data and surgeon preference/patient considerations.