Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Experience Among General Surgery Residents: A Multi-Institutional Study from the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and case volume among graduating surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minority individuals face barriers to entry and advancement in surgery; however, no large-scale investigations of the operative experience of racial/ethnic minority residents have been performed. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of categorical general surgery residents at 20 programs in the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database was performed. All residents graduating between 2010 and 2020 were included. The total, surgeon chief, surgeon junior, and teaching assistant case volumes were compared between racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 1343 residents. There were 211 (15.7%) Asian, 65 (4.8%) Black, 73 (5.4%) Hispanic, 71 (5.3%) "Other" (Native American or Multiple Race), and 923 (68.7%) White residents. On adjusted analysis, Black residents performed 76 fewer total cases (95% CI, -109 to -43, P <0.001) and 69 fewer surgeon junior cases (-98 to -40, P <0.001) than White residents. Comparing adjusted total case volume by graduation year, both Black residents and White residents performed more cases over time; however, there was no difference in the rates of annual increase (10 versus 12 cases per year increase, respectively, P =0.769). Thus, differences in total case volume persisted over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, Black residents graduated with lower case volume than non-minority residents throughout the previous decade. Reduced operative learning opportunities may negatively impact professional advancement. Systemic interventions are needed to promote equitable operative experience and positive culture change.

Disparities in the Operative Experience Between Female and Male General Surgery Residents: A Multi-institutional Study From the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in resident operative experience between male and female general surgery residents. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing female representation in surgery, sex and gender disparities in residency experience continue to exist. The operative volume of male and female general surgery residents has not been compared on a multi-institutional level. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and case logs were obtained for categorical general surgery graduates between 2010 and 2020 from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database. Univariable, multivariable, and linear regression analyses were performed to compare differences in operative experience between male and female residents. RESULTS: There were 1343 graduates from 20 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs, and 476 (35%) were females. There were no differences in age, race/ethnicity, or proportion pursuing fellowship between groups. Female graduates were less likely to be high-volume residents (27% vs 36%, P < 0.01). On univariable analysis, female graduates performed fewer total cases than male graduates (1140 vs 1177, P < 0.01), largely due to a diminished surgeon junior experience (829 vs 863, P < 0.01). On adjusted multivariable analysis, female sex was negatively associated with being a high-volume resident (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.98, P = 0.03). Over the 11-year study period, the annual total number of cases increased significantly for both groups, but female graduates (+16 cases/year) outpaced male graduates (+13 cases/year, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Female general surgery graduates performed significantly fewer cases than male graduates. Reassuringly, this gap in operative experience may be narrowing. Further interventions are warranted to promote equitable training opportunities that support and engage female residents.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE Consortium examining factors associated with directly entering practice upon residency graduation.

BACKGROUND: There is concern regarding the competency of today's general surgery graduates as a large proportion defer independent practice in favor of additional fellowship training. Little is known about the graduates who directly enter general surgery practice and if their operative experiences during residency differ from graduates who pursue fellowship. METHODS: Nineteen Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium were included. Demographics, career choice, and case logs from graduates between 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1,264 general surgery residents who graduated over the 11-year period. A total of 248 (19.6%) went directly into practice and 1,016 (80.4%) pursued fellowship. Graduates directly entering practice were more likely to be a high-volume resident (43.1% vs 30.5%, P < .01) and graduate from a high-volume program (49.2% vs 33.0%, P < .01). Direct-to-practice graduates performed 53 more cases compared with fellowship-bound graduates (1,203 vs 1,150, P < .01). On multivariable analysis, entering directly into practice was positively associated with total surgeon chief case volume (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.84, P < .01) and graduating from a US medical school (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.45-4.44, P < .01) while negatively associated with completing a dedicated research experience (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.45, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional study exploring resident operative experience and career choice. These data suggest residents who desire immediate practice can tailor their experience with less research time and increased operative volume. These data may be helpful for programs when designing their experience for residents with different career goals.

Intrauterine device use in a high-risk population: experience from an urban university clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptability, efficacy, and complication rates of the ParaGard intrauterine device (IUD; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc, Cincinnati, OH) and the Mirena intrauterine system (IUS; Berlax Laboratories, Wayne, NJ) in a cohort of women who attended an urban university-based obstetrics and gynecology resident clinic. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 194 women who had an IUD/IUS inserted between January 2000-December 2005. RESULTS: One-third of the women who received an IUD had a history of sexually transmitted disease before the insertion. No differences were found between women with an IUD or an IUS regarding demographics and obstetric and gynecologic history before IUD insertion. The IUD was associated with significantly higher rates of herpes simplex and Neisseria gonorrhea infections, complaints of expulsion, and unintended pregnancy after the insertion. No increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease was associated with IUD use. CONCLUSION: IUD/IUS use appears to be safe, acceptable, and feasible in high-risk patients. The IUS had lower rates of complications and greater acceptability than the IUD.