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.

The importance of USMLE step 2 on the screening and selection of applicants for general surgery residency positions.

Background: As announced by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting has transitioned to pass/fail outcomes instead of the traditional numeric score after January 26, 2022. USMLE Step 1 scores have been used widely as a crucial tool in screening and selecting applicants for residency programs. This study aims to determine the role of USMLE Step 2 in the selection of applicants for general surgery residency. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted over six recruiting cycles from 2016 to 2021. The data from 334 interviewed applicants from one general surgery residency program were assessed. Data analyzed included USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores, applicant gender, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, letters of recommendation (LOR), and research/publications (RS). Results: Of the 334 interviewed applicants, 209 (62.6%) were male. The mean [SD] USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 C K (Clinical Knowledge) scores were 239.6 [±10.4] and 249.2 [±11.4], respectively. The mean (SD) LOR and RS scores were 4.24 [±0.4] and 3.9 [±0.7], respectively. A positive correlation was observed between USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 C K (Clinical Knowledge) scores (r = 0.60, p < .001), LOR scores (r = 0.24, p = .008), and AOA status (r = 0.19, p = .038). There was a negligible correlation between USMLE scores and applicant gender. Conclusion: Transitioning USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail will make the initial screening and selection process of applications challenging for residency programs. In the short term, USMLE Step 2 scores, LOR, and AOA status are important as screening assessments. Valid measures to ensure appropriate, equitable, and fair assessments are needed.