Underrepresented Applicants Post-USMLE Pass/Fail: A National Survey of Competitive Residency Directors.

Objective: To report the selection criteria important to residency program directors (PDs) and whether they believe pass/fail scoring will impact underrepresented in medicine (URM), International Medical Graduate (IMG), or osteopathic (DO) residency applicants after the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) changed Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail in January 2022. Methods: A Qualtrics survey was sent between August 2022 and January 2023 to 1141 US PDs from specialties with traditionally low residency selection rates: dermatology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, interventional radiology, diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, thoracic surgery, vascular surgery, plastic surgery, and urology. Contact information was obtained from AMA, FRIEDA, or program websites. Results: We received 433 responses (38%). When asked to anticipate the difficulty student groups will face matching into their specialty, PDs reported: for URM, 24.0% increased, 46.0% unchanged, and 30.0% decreased; for DO, 49.19% increased, 44.58% unchanged, and 6.23% decreased and for IMG, 56.35% increased, 39.72% unchanged, and 3.93% decreased. When asked to rank the most important selection factors, the top two responses were Step 2 CK score and away rotation participation at their site. Conclusion: PDs overwhelmingly believed residency selection difficulty would either increase or remain unchanged for DO (93.77%) and IMG (96.07%). In contrast, 76.0% reported difficulty for URM students would either decrease or remain unchanged. PDs ranked Step 2 CK score and away rotation participation as the most important selection factors. Despite PDs' belief that the Step 1 pass/fail scoring system may mitigate one barrier for URM students, emphasis on Step 2 CK and away rotations place additional barriers.

Introduction of 1.9 mm Trilogy lithotripter in miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Description of technique and case outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the novel use of a 1.9 mm Trilogy lithotripter probe with varying locations and composition of renal stones. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients to undergo mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) procedures using the 1.9 mm (instead of the standard 1.5 mm) Trilogy probe from August 2021 to April 2022. Several adjunctive irrigation measures compensated for reduced flow with the larger probe. Primary outcome was treatment efficiency. Patient demographics, preoperative demographics, and comorbidities, as well as real-time surgical data were extracted. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare stone type and location. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included in this study. The median total treatment time was 6.8 minutes, median lithotripsy time was 3.3 minutes, median stone treatment efficiency was 0.34 mm/min, and treatment efficacy was 50.4 (lithotripter time/treatment time). Overall median lithotripter efficiency was 104.6 mm3/min. Treatment efficiency was similar among stone composition (p=0.245) and location (p=0.263). Lithotripter 3D and 1D efficiency was also similar among stone composition (p=0.637 and p=0.766, respectively). Lithotripter 1D efficiency was nearly twice as fast in the lower pole compared to other stone locations (p=0.010). Overall broken probe rate for this procedure was 12%, mostly at the beginning, suggesting a learning curve. Five patients had minor complications, including one patient that required admission to the hospital for postoperative pain management. CONCLUSIONS: The 1.9 mm Trilogy lithotripter can be effective in mPCNL procedures with the use of easily implementable adjunctive irrigation techniques, decreasing the gap between lithotripsy time and total treatment time.

Active Compared With Passive Voiding Trials After Midurethral Sling Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare active with passive voiding trials on the rate of passing a trial of void and discharge rates with catheter in women who have undergone midurethral sling for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through February 24, 2023. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Our population included women undergoing midurethral sling, with or without anterior or posterior repair, for treatment of SUI. Our two primary outcomes were rate of passing voiding trial and rate of discharge with a catheter. Our secondary outcome was the rate of delayed postoperative urinary retention, when a patient initially passes a trial of void but then subsequently presents in retention. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Abstracts were doubly screened; full-text articles were doubly screened; and accepted articles were doubly extracted. In single-arm studies evaluating either passive or active voiding trial, random-effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were used to assess outcomes. Of 3,033 abstracts screened, 238 full-text articles were assessed, and 26 met inclusion criteria. Ten studies including 1,370 patients reported active trial of void. Sixteen studies including 3,643 patients reported passive trial of void. We included five randomized controlled trials, five comparative retrospective studies, five prospective single group studies, and 11 retrospective single group studies. Five of the studies included patients with a concomitant anterior or posterior colporrhaphy. On proportional meta-analysis, the active trial of void group was less likely to pass the voiding trial (81.0%, 95% CI, 0.76-0.87% vs 89.0%, 95% CI, 0.84-0.9%3, P =.029) with high heterogeneity ( I2 =93.0%). Furthermore, there were more discharges with catheter in active trial of void compared with passive trial of void (19.0%, 95% CI, 0.14-0.24% vs 7.0%, 95% CI, 0.05-0.10%, P <.01). The rates of delayed postoperative urinary retention were low and not different between groups (0.6%, 95% CI, 0.00-0.02% vs 0.2%, 95% CI, 0.00-0.01%, P =.366) with low heterogeneity ( I2 =0%). Sling revisions were statistically lower in the active trial of void group (0.5%, 95% CI, 0.00-0.01% vs 1.5%, 95% CI, 0.01-0.02%, P =.035) with low heterogeneity ( I2 =10.4%). CONCLUSION: Passive trial of void had higher passing rates and lower discharge with catheter than active trial of void. Rates of most complications were low and similar between both groups, although passive trial of void had higher sling revisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022341318.