Surgeon perspectives on the STITCH trial: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia prevention strategies related to fascial closure technique during laparotomy are well described yet poorly implemented in practice. The factors hindering the surgeon's adoption of evidence-based techniques for fascial closure are poorly understood and characterized. METHODS: Using an exploratory sequential mixed methods design, we first collected 139 responses to a validated quantitative survey based on a Theoretical Domain Framework for adoption of healthcare practices. Mean scores from survey responses were tabulated, and the findings were used to develop an interview guide for subsequent qualitative individual semi-structured phone interviews. Fourteen practicing surgeons were purposively sampled from social media outlets and our institution. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim for coding and thematic analysis using NVivo 12 Plus. Data from the surveys and interviews were integrated using joint displays. RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative analyses from surveys and semi-structured interviews revealed various themes related to surgeon decision-making related to fascial closure technique. Surgeons cited limitations of prior studies, applicability of findings, anecdotal experiences, and situation-specific environments that influence their decision-making. Peer influence and lack of training also affected surgeons' perspectives on integrating small bite technique into practice. CONCLUSION: Trial design limitations, peer influence, and patient-specific factors impacted surgeon decision-making in the choice of fascial closure technique. Future clinical trials in diverse patient populations may improve surgeons' confidence in implementing technique for fascial closure.

Preserving the Pipeline of Surgeon Scientists: The Role of a Structured Research Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: With shrinking National Institute of Health support, increased clinical demands, and less time for research training during residency, the future of surgeon scientists is in jeopardy. We evaluate the role of a structured research curriculum and its association with resident academic productivity. METHODS: Categorical general surgery residents who matched between 2005 and 2019 at our institution were analyzed (n = 104). An optional structured research curriculum, including a mentor program, grant application support, didactic seminars, and travel funding was implemented in 2016. Academic productivity, including the number of publications and citations, was compared between residents who started in or after 2016 (postimplementation, n = 33) and those before 2016 (preimplementation, n = 71). Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test, multivariable logistic regression, and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed. RESULTS: The postimplementation group had more female (57.6% versus 31.0%, P = 0.010), and nonwhite (36.4% versus 5.6%, P < 0.001) residents and had more publications and citations at the start of residency (P < 0.001). Postimplementation residents were more likely to choose academic development time (ADT) (66.7% versus 23.9%, P < 0.001) and had higher median (IQR) number of publications (2.0 (1.0-12.5) versus 1.0 (0-5.0), P = 0.028) during residency. After adjusting the number of publications at the start of residency, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the postimplementation group was five times more likely to choose ADT (95% CI 1.7-14.7, P = 0.04). Further, inverse probability treatment weighting revealed an increase of 0.34 publications per year after implementing the structured research curriculum among residents who chose ADT (95% CI 0.1-0.9, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: A structured research curriculum was associated with increased academic productivity and surgical resident participation in dedicated ADT. A structured research curriculum is effective and should be integrated into residency training to support the next generation of academic surgeons.

A retrospective single-institution review of the impact of COVID-19 on severity of biliary disease.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic possessed far-reaching health implications beyond the public health impact that have yet to be fully elucidated. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in biliary disease complexity and incidence of emergency cholecystectomy. METHODS: We reviewed our institutional experience with cholecystectomy from February 2019-February 2021, n = 912. Pre COVID-19 pandemic patients were compared to patients after the onset of the pandemic. Baseline characteristics were compared between groups. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend assessed the temporal impact of COVID-19 on emergency presentation and gallbladder disease complexity. RESULTS: We identified 442 patients pre-pandemic and 470 patients during the pandemic. No significant differences were noted in demographics. COVID-19 significantly impacted emergency presentation (43.2% vs. 56.8%, p= <0.01), cholecystitis (53.2% vs 61.8%; p=<0.01), and gangrenous cholecystitis (2.8% vs 6.1%; p=<0.01). Both groups had similar clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic affected an increased incidence of emergency presentation and complexity of gallbladder disease but did not significantly impact clinical outcomes. These findings may have broader implications for other diseases possibly affected by COVID-19.