Financial Relationships in General Surgery Education: Recent Trends in Industry Payments to General Surgery Residency Leadership.

INTRODUCTION: Residency programs and their directors frequently receive funding from industry payers. Both general surgery residency program directors (PDs) and assistant program directors (APDs) receive industry funding for various reasons, including educational advancement. This study investigates recent trends in industry payments to both PDs and APDs to better understand the financial relationships among leaders in residency education. METHODS: We compared industry payments to general surgery residency PDs and APDs from 2019 to 2021 utilizing the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) open payments database. In addition, secondary analyses were performed among PDs to assess differences based on gender, practicing surgical specialty, and geographical region. RESULTS: During the study period (2019-2021), PDs received payments amounting to 2,882,821 USD. PDs were found to receive more funding than APDs, with each receiving average funding of 10,045 vs. 323 USD (p < 0.01), respectively, over the study period. There was a significant decrease in total payments from 2019 to 2020 (1,512,190 vs. 868,811 USD; p < 0.01). Total payments made in 2021 were similar compared to 2020 (905,836 vs. 868,811 USD; p = 0.1). We found that male PDs received significantly more in-industry payments when compared to female PDs (11,702 USD per PD vs. 3971 USD per PD, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study presents initial data that residency program leadership has robust biomedical industry relationships, and further research is warranted to investigate the impacts of these payments on program resources, educational opportunities for residents, and program outcomes. Male PDs received significantly more industry payments when compared to female PDs. Leaders in the surgical training community must cautiously ensure that these industry relationships are appropriately navigated.

Program Website Evaluation Regarding Dedicated Research Years Offered in General Surgery Residency Programs in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Research is a vital component in the advancements of surgical sciences due to the reliance of treatment options on innovations and outcomes of patient care. This study aimed to identify research pathways, opportunities, and academic productivities of different general surgery residency programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based review was conducted concerning accredited US general surgery residency programs. Each program's official website was assessed for the availability of research year, compulsory status, duration, type, structure, and location. The study also identified faculty supervision, research day, funding, output, and opportunities to obtain an advanced degree. RESULTS: Data were collected from all 313 general surgery programs in the United States, out of which 127 (41%) offered a dedicated research year to their residents. The research year was deemed mandatory in 27 programs (8%) and optional in 100 programs (32%). Seventy-two programs (23%) offered to start the dedicated research year after postgraduate year 2 or postgraduate year 3. Twenty-two programs (7.02%) provided examples of resident publications and presentations. Resident research day was cited by 42 programs (13.41%). On campus research opportunity was mentioned by nine programs (2.8%), while the off campus chance was provided by 10 programs (3.19%). Furthermore, 36 programs (11.5%) demonstrated potential funding sources. Finally, 38 (12.14%) programs mentioned receiving advanced degrees after the research year. CONCLUSIONS: Although dedicated research time is provided to trainees for some research programs, there is a lack of structure and the need to expand the available content and information regarding research opportunities for the various general surgery residency programs.

Perceptions and Early Outcomes of the Acuity Circles Allocation Policy Among Liver Transplant Centers in the United States.

Recently, a new liver allocation policy called the acuity circles (AC) framework was implemented to decrease geographic disparities in transplant metrics across donor service areas. Early analyses have examined the changes in outcomes because of the AC policy. However, perceptions among transplant surgeons and staff regarding the new policy remain unknown. Methods: A 28-item survey was sent to division chiefs and surgical directors of liver transplantation across the United States. Questions assessed the respondents' perceptions regarding center-level metrics and staff satisfaction. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to study differences in allocation between the pre-AC implementation period (2019) and the post-AC implementation period (2020-2021). Results: A total of 40 participants completed this ongoing survey study. Most responses were from region 8 (13%), region 10 (15%), and region 11 (13%). Sixty-three percent of respondents stated that the wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score <30 has decreased, whereas 50% stated that wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score >30 has increased. However, most respondents (75%) felt that the average cost per transplant had increased and that the rate of surgical complications and 1-y graft survival had remained the same. In most states, an observable decrease in in-state liver transplantations occurred each year between 2019 and 2021. In addition, most allocation regions reported an increase in donations after circulatory deaths between 2019 and 2021. Conclusions: Perceptions of the new AC policy among liver transplant surgeons in the United States remain mixed, highlighting the potential strengths and concerns regarding its future impact. Further studies should assess the effects of the AC policy on clinical outcomes and liver transplantation access.

The undisclosed disclosures: Conflicts of interest in studies related to robotics in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of robotics in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery has increased. With this increased collaboration, there has also been a push toward improving the transparency of conflicts of interest in terms of funding provided by robotics companies. METHODS: Studies with ≥1 American author published between 2016 and 2020 discussing robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery were included in the analysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Program was used to evaluate the accuracy of industry payment disclosures. Conflict of interest was defined as a lack of disclosure of ≥$100 funding from any robotics company in the United States. The primary outcome of this study was to determine the efficacy of the current standard conflict of interest reporting in surgery. RESULTS: A total of 355 studies (2,413 authors) were included. Of the studies that received robotics funding (n = 133), 20.3% did not disclose their conflicts of interest, whereas 79.7% had a conflict of interest disclosure. However, most of the disclosures (76.5%) were inaccurate. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study require an update in journal policies to ensure the accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery studies. Similarly, the investigators should ensure that their disclosures are accurate. Finally, surgeons must be more on top of their relationships with these companies and consider their vulnerability to bias.

National Trends in Cholecystectomy and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography During Index Hospitalization for Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines call for cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization for patients with gallstone pancreatitis. Therefore, the study sought to determine the trends for cholecystectomy and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for mild gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the 2010-2018 Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) was performed to identify patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis. The primary aim was to identify the trends in the use of cholecystectomy in these patients, and the secondary aim was to assess if ERCP alone was protective against readmission. RESULTS: A total of 510,470 patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis were identified. There has been an increasing trend in ERCP use (25% in 2018 vs. 22% in 2010; p-0.001) and a decline in cholecystectomy (37% in 2018 vs. 46% in 2010; p-0.001) prior to discharge. Multivariate analysis revealed higher 30-day readmission for patients who underwent ERCP without cholecystectomy (odds ratio1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.5) during the index admission. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a decline in the use of cholecystectomy during index hospitalization for mild gallstone pancreatitis. In addition, ERCP was not protective against 30-day readmission from mild gallstone pancreatitis.