Gender Disparities in Presentations at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Meetings From 2014 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Participation in surgical society meetings serves as a proxy for academic success and is important for career development. This study aimed to investigate and report the gender breakdown of presenters at recent Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meetings. METHODS: Genders of presenters for poster, parallel, plenary, and video sessions at SSO meetings from 2014 through 2019 were collected. These data were broken down to first-last authorship relationships including female-female, female-male, male-female, and male-male. The proportions of female-to-male presenters were compared for each session type. Statistical significance was set at p value lower than 0.05. RESULTS: From 2014 through 2019, the SSO had 2920 presenters, and 47% were female. Women were listed as first authors more often for the poster session (48%) than for other sessions (parallel, plenary, and video) (p = 0.003). Women also were listed more often as senior authors for the poster session (31%) than for other sessions (p = 0.004). Female senior authors were fewer than male senior authors across all session types. Female first authors had the highest representation in breast (75%), endocrine (48%), and cutaneous (46%) specialties (p < 0.001). The most common combination of first and senior authors was male-male (43%), followed by female-male (28%), female-female (19%), and male-female (10%). CONCLUSION: Overall, female presentation at SSO is comparable with society demographics, and female first authorship is relatively equal to male first authorship in poster sessions. Whereas female first authorship improved over time, female senior authorship remained relatively flat. Opportunities to improve gender equality in senior authorship positions should be explored.

Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair: longitudinal outcomes and cost analysis using statewide claims data.

BACKGROUND: There is still considerable debate regarding the best operative approach to ventral hernia repair. Using two large statewide databases, this study sought to evaluate the longitudinal outcomes and associated costs of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair from 2007-2011 were identified from inpatient discharge data from California and New York. In-hospital morbidity, in-hospital mortality, incidence of readmission, and incidence of revisional ventral hernia repair were evaluated as a function of surgical technique. The associated costs of medical care for laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair were evaluate for both the index procedure and all subsequent admissions and procedures within the study period. RESULTS: A total of 13,567 patients underwent elective ventral hernia repair with mesh; 9228 (69%) underwent OVHR and 4339 (31%) underwent LVHR. At time of the index procedure, LVHR was associated with a lower incidence of reoperation (OR 0.29, CI 0.12-0.58, p = 0.001), wound disruption (OR 0.35, CI 0.16-0.78, p = 0.01), wound infection (OR 0.50, CI 0.25-0.70, p < 0.001), blood transfusion (OR 0.47, CI 0.36-0.61, p < 0.001), ARDS (OR 0.74, CI 0.54-0.99, p < 0.05), and total index visit complications (OR 0.72, CI 0.64-0.80, p < 0.001). LVHR was associated with significantly fewer readmissions (OR 0.81, CI 0.75-0.88, p < 0.001) and a lower risk for revisional VHR (OR 0.75, CI 0.64-0.88, p < 0.001). LVHR was associated with lower total costs at 1 year ($3451, CI 1892-5011, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Open ventral hernia repair was associated with a higher incidence of perioperative complications, postoperative readmissions and need for revisional hernia repair when compared to laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, even when controlling for patient sociodemographics. In congruence, open ventral hernia repair was associated with higher costs for both the index hernia repair and tallied over the length of follow-up for readmissions and revisional hernia repair.