Ergonomic differences in mesh placement and mesh fixation between laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair with mesh.

PURPOSE: General differences in surgeon ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repairs (LIHR vs. RIHR) have been previously studied. However, specific differences in the ergonomics of mesh placement (MP) and mesh fixation (MF) are undetermined. Our aim was to determine if there are differences in the ergonomics of MP and MF between the surgical approaches. We hypothesize that we will identify differences, with the potential for worse ergonomics during LIHR. METHODS: Data was collected from fifteen LIHR and fifteen RIHR. All cases were elective, primary inguinal hernias completed by a fellowship-trained minimally invasive surgeon. Surface electromyography (EMG) of four upper extremity muscle groups, including the upper trapezius (UT), anterior deltoid (AD), flexor carpi radialis (FCR) and extensor digitorum (ED), was recorded bilaterally during MP and MF. Muscle activation as a percent of maximum voluntary contraction (%MVCRMS) and muscle fatigue denoted as the median frequency of muscle activations (Fmed) were calculated for each muscle. RESULTS: EMG analysis showed increased %MVCRMS in LIHR compared to RIHR cases, with significant findings in the left UT, right UT, ED, and FCR for MP and MF and the left FCR during MP. Muscle fatigue was decreased in LIHR compared to RIHR cases, with significant differences in left FCR and right ED and AD. CONCLUSION: Despite greater muscle activations during LIHR, RIHR had greater muscle fatigue. It is possible that short periods of high muscle activation are ergonomically protective during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. Identifying these differences may aid in development of procedure-specific interventions to improve ergonomics.

Mentorship of Junior Surgical Faculty Across Academic Programs in Surgery.

Importance: Because mentorship is critical for professional development and career advancement, it is essential to examine the status of mentorship and identify challenges that junior surgical faculty (assistant and associate professors) face obtaining effective mentorship. Objective: To evaluate the mentorship experience for junior surgical faculty and highlight areas for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study including an anonymous survey on mentorship followed by semistructured interviews to expand on survey findings. Junior surgical faculty from 18 US academic surgery programs were included in the anonymous survey and interviews. Survey responses between "formal" (assigned by the department) vs "informal" (sought out by the faculty) mentors and male vs female junior faculty were compared using χ2 tests. Interview responses were analyzed for themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey responses were collected from November 2022 to August 2023, and interviews conducted from July to December 2023. Exposure: Mentorship from formal and/or informal mentors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey gauged the availability and satisfaction with formal and informal mentorship; interviews assessed broad themes regarding mentorship. Results: Of 825 survey recipients, 333 (40.4%) responded; 155 (51.7%) were male and 134 (44.6%) female. Nearly all respondents (319 [95.8%]) agreed or strongly agreed that mentorship is important to their surgical career, especially for professional networking (309 respondents [92.8%]), career advancement (301 [90.4%]), and research (294 [88.3%]). However, only 58 respondents (18.3%) had a formal mentor. More female than male faculty had informal mentors (123 [91.8%] vs 123 [79.4%]; P = .003). Overall satisfaction was higher with informal mentorship than formal mentorship (221 [85.0%] vs 40 [69.0%]; P = .01). Most male and female faculty reported no preferences in gender or race and ethnicity for their mentors. When asked if they had good mentor options if they wanted to change mentors, 141 (47.8%) responded no. From the interviews (n = 20), 6 themes were identified, including absence of mentorship infrastructure, preferred mentor characteristics, and optimizing mentorship. Conclusions and Relevance: Academic junior surgical faculty agree mentorship is vital to their careers. However, this study found that few had formal mentors and almost half need more satisfactory options if they want to change mentors. Academic surgical programs should adopt a framework for facilitating mentorship and optimize mentor-mentee relationships through alignment of mentor-mentee goals and needs.

Association of Preoperative Glycosylated Hemoglobin Level with 30-Day Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: an Analysis of the ACS-MBSAQIP Database.

PURPOSE: Elevated glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality following several cardiac, colorectal, orthopedic, and vascular surgery operations. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a HgA1c cut-point that can be used in patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to decrease the risk of 30-day wound events and additional 30-day morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing first-time, elective Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 2017 and 2018 with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) and a preoperative HbA1c level were identified within the American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (ACS-MBSAQIP) database. The association of preoperative HbA1c levels with 30-day morbidity and mortality was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 13,806 patients met inclusion criteria. Two natural HbA1c inflection points for composite wound events, including superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infections (SSI) and wound dehiscence, were found. A HbA1c level of ≤ 6.5% was associated with a decreased odds of experiencing the composite 30-day wound event outcome while a HbA1c level of > 8.6% was associated with an increased odds of experiencing the composite 30-day wound event outcome. The differences in the incidence of the 30-day composite wound event outcomes were driven primarily by superficial and organ space SSI, including anastomotic leaks. CONCLUSION: Patients with DM being evaluated for RYGB surgery with a HbA1c level > 8.6% are at an increased risk for 30-day wound events, including superficial and organ space SSI.

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. RESULTS: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.