Elective foot and ankle surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic is safe: A report of 30-day morbidity and mortality

IntroductionThe safety of resuming elective surgical services remains unclear following several surges of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. Multiple studies have reported high rates of post-operative mortality and pulmonary complications. 30-day outcomes on an initial cohort of patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery at 3 central London hospitals are presented.Materials and methodsThis study is a retrospective review of the first 63 patients undergoing surgery following the first UK surge via a modified treatment pathway, based on published national guidelines, designed to minimise the risks to patients and staff associated with COVID-19.Results90% of patients were ASA 1 or 2, with an average age of 46. All tested negative for COVID-19 pre-operatively and all but one underwent a general anaesthetic. 10 patients required one night hospital stays and 1 was admitted for four nights. 52 were day case procedures. 2 complications were identified, not relating to COVID-19 infection. No 30-day mortalities or pulmonary complications were recorded.ConclusionsWith a community prevalence of COVID-19 of between 1 in 1500 and 1 in 1700, elective foot and ankle surgery was safe following the first surge of the pandemic in the UK. This data can guide elective service planning in countries with pandemic curves behind the UK’s or in the event of further surges in national cases.     

Identifying potentially avoidable femoral to popliteal expanded polytetrafluoroethylene bypass for claudication using cross-site blinded peer review

ObjectiveThe surgical treatment of claudication can be associated with significant morbidity and costs. There are growing concerns that some patients proceed to interventions without first attempting evidence-based nonoperative management. We used a direct, cross-site, blinded expert review to evaluate the appropriateness of the surgical treatment of claudication.MethodsWe enlisted practicing vascular surgeons to perform retrospective clinical assessments of lower extremity bypass procedures in a statewide clinical registry. Cases were limited to elective, open, infrainguinal bypasses performed for claudication using prosthetic grafts. Reviewing surgeons were randomly assigned 10 cases from a sample of 139 anonymized bypass operations and instructed to evaluate procedural appropriateness based on their expert opinion and evidence-based guidelines for preoperative treatment, namely, antiplatelet, statin, cilostazol, exercise, and smoking cessation therapy as documented in the medical record. Ninety-day episode payments were estimated from a distinct but similar cohort of patients undergoing lower extremity bypass for claudication.ResultsOf 325 total reviews, surgeons stated they would not have recommended bypass in 134 reviews (41%) and deemed bypass inappropriate in 122 reviews (38%). The most common reason for inappropriateness was lack of preoperative medical and lifestyle therapy, which was present in 63% of reviews where bypass was deemed appropriate and 39% of reviews where bypass was deemed inappropriate (P < .001). Surgeons stated they would have recommended additional preoperative therapy in 65% of reviews where bypass was deemed inappropriate and 35% of reviews where bypass was deemed appropriate (P < .001). The mean total episode payments in a similar cohort of 1458 patients undergoing elective open lower extremity bypass for claudication were $31,301 ± $21,219. Extrapolating to the 325 reviews, the 134 reviews in which surgeons would not have recommended bypass were associated with potentially avoidable estimated total payments of $4,194,334, and the 122 reviews in which bypass was deemed inappropriate were associated with potentially avoidable estimated total payments of $3,818,722.ConclusionsIn this cross-site expert peer review study, 40% of lower extremity bypasses were deemed premature and, therefore, potentially avoidable, primarily owing to a lack of medical and lifestyle management before surgery. Reviews deemed inappropriate were associated with approximately $4 million in potentially avoidable costs. This approach could inform performance feedback among surgeons to help align clinical practice with evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of claudication.     

Most surgeons' daily elective lists in Florida comprise only 1 or 2 elective cases,making percent utilization unreliable for planning individual surgeons' block time

Study objectiveOperating room (OR) utilization has been shown in multiple studies to be an inappropriate metric for planning OR time for individual surgeons. Among surgeons with low daily caseloads, percentage utilization cannot be measured accurately because confidence limits are extremely wide. In Iowa, a largely rural state, most surgeons performed only 1 or 2 elective cases on their OR days. To assess generalizability, we analyzed Florida, a state with many high-population density areas.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingThe 602 facilities in Florida that performed inpatient or outpatient elective surgery from January 2010 through December 2019.SubjectsThe providers licensed to perform surgery in Florida (physician, oral surgeons, dentists, and podiatrists) were identified by their national provider number. Hospitals were deidentified before analysis.MeasurementsThe primary endpoint was the mean among facilities in percentages of surgeon-day combinations (“lists”) containing 1 or 2 cases. Proportions were calculated using Freeman-Tukey transformation and the harmonic mean of the number of lists at each facility. Comparison to “most” (>50%) used Student's two-sided one-group t-test.Main resultsAveraging among hospitals, most surgeons' lists included 1 or 2 cases (64.4%; 99% confidence interval [CI] 61.3%–67.4%) P < 0.00001). Many lists had 1 case (44.2%, 99% CI 41.2%–47.2%). Nearly all (96.7%) surgeons operated at just one hospital on their OR days.ConclusionsMost surgeons' lists of elective surgical cases comprised 1 or 2 cases in the largely urban state of Florida, as previously found in the largely rural state of Iowa. Results were insensitive to organizational size or county population. Thus, our finding is generalizable in the United States. Consequently, neither adjusted nor raw utilization should be used solely when allocating OR time to individual surgeons. Anesthesia and nursing coverage of cases can be based on maximizing the efficiency of use of OR time.     

Incidence,features, outcome and impact on health system of de-novo abdominal surgical diseases in patients admitted with COVID-19

Objectiveto assess the epidemiology and features of de novo surgical diseases in patients admitted with COVID-19, and their impact on patients and healthcare system.Summary background dataGastrointestinal involvement has been described in COVID-19; however, no clear figures of incidence, epidemiology and economic impact exist for de-novo surgical diseases in hospitalized patients.MethodsThis is a prospective study including all patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 rT-PCR, between 1 March and 15 May 2020 at two Tertiary Hospitals. Patients with known surgical disease at admission were excluded. Sub-analyses were performed with a consecutive group of COVID-19 patients admitted during the study period, who did not require surgical consultation.ResultsTen out of 3089 COVID-19 positive patients (0.32%) required surgical consultation. Among those admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) incidence was 1.9%. Mortality was 40% in patients requiring immediate surgery and 20% in those suitable for conservative management. The overall median length of stay (LOS) of patients admitted to ICU was longer in those requiring surgical consultation compared with those who did not (51.5 vs 25 days, p = 0.0042). Patients requiring surgical consultation and treatment for de-novo surgical disease had longer median ICU-LOS (31.5 vs 12 days, p = 0.0004). A median of two post-surgical complications were registered for each patient undergoing surgery. Complication-associated costs were as high as 38,962 USD per patient.ConclusionsIncidence of de-novo surgical diseases is low in COVID-19, but it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Future studies should elucidate the mechanism underlying the condition and identify strategies to prevent the need for surgery.     

Variations in colorectal cancer surgery practice across the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic – ‘Every land has its own law’

BackgroundIn March 2020 NHS England issued guidelines recognizing the elective component of cancer surgeries may be ‘curtailed’, due to staffing and supply shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it suggested, ‘local solutions’ should be sought in order to protect the delivery of cancer services.We aimed to compare surgeons’ practice for the provision of colorectal (CR) cancer surgery across the United Kingdom (UK), against updated Joint Royal Colleges & ACPGBI guidelines and highlight differences in practice, if any.MethodAn online survey was conducted. It examined surgical practice across the UK against current protocols for CR cancer surgeries, during the COVID-19 pandemic.Results29 individual responses were received from 23 NHS Trusts across the UK. 23/29 (79%) surgeons ceased or experienced delays in their CR cancer surgeries during the pandemic, with 3/29 (10%) yet to reintroduce these services. 19/26 (73%) surgeons instructed their patients to self-isolate prior to surgery, of which 5/19 (26%) correctly enforced a duration of 14 days. 10/19 (53%) participants adhered to guidelines of performing a CT chest within 24 h of surgery. 10/26 (38%) participants believe their patients are experiencing longer hospital admissions in the COVID-19 setting.ConclusionThis snap shot survey highlights the dramatic variations in CR cancer surgery practice within the UK and inconsistent adherence to protocols. Guidelines will no doubt change as our knowledge of COVID-19 increases both nationally and internationally. It is essential CR surgeons keep up to date with changes in guidance, so uniformity in practice can be maintained.     

Adoption of a standardized treatment protocol for pilonidal disease leads to low recurrence

BackgroundPilonidal disease may present as acute abscesses or chronic draining sinuses. There is no standardized treatment and recurrence rates can be as high as 30%. Within our five-hospital network we have established a standardized treatment protocol including minimally invasive surgical trephination and aggressive epilation. We hypothesize that such a treatment protocol can be established across different hospital settings and lead to low overall recurrence.MethodsPatients with pilonidal disease were enrolled in the study on presentation to our hospital network. Those that underwent initial surgery outside our hospital system or were noncompliant with our treatment protocol were excluded. Patients were grouped based on surgeon and treating facility. Frequency of recurrence per surgeon and per hospital was calculated and compared.ResultsOut of 132 patients, 80 patients were included (45 female, 35 male) while 52 were excluded because of initial surgery at a non-network hospital or for protocol noncompliance. Median age was 17 (16–19) years and median length of follow-up was 352 (261–496) days. There were 6 patients who experienced at least one recurrence. There was an overall 8% recurrence rate with no significant difference noted between surgeons or hospitals (p = 0.15, p = 0.64, respectively).ConclusionsWe have successfully implemented a standardized treatment protocol for pilonidal disease across different hospital settings and by different surgeons, with an overall low recurrence rate. Our findings suggest that adoption of a standardized protocol for treatment of pilonidal disease can lead to low recurrence.Level of evidenceLevel IV.     

Are there benefits to maintaining Covid-19 pandemic pathways for the long-term? A surgical assessment unit based study

BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic has led to the introduction of conservative non-operative approaches to surgical management favouring community driven care. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of these pathways on patients attending a surgical assessment unit (SAU).MethodThis was a retrospective observational cohort study. We included all consecutive attendances to the SAU in April 2020 (Covid-19 period) and April 2019 (pre-Covid-19). The Covid-19 period saw a shift in clinical practice towards a more conservative approach to the management of acute surgical presentations. The primary outcome measure was 30-day readmission. The secondary outcome measures were length of hospital stay, inpatient investigations undertaken and 30-day mortality.ResultsA total of 451 patients were included. This represented 277 and 174 attendances in pre-Covid-19, and Covid-19 groups respectively. The rates of unplanned 30-day readmission rates in the Covid-19 and pre-Covid-19 periods were 16.7% and 12.6% respectively (P = 0.232). There were significantly fewer planned follow-ups in the Covid-19 (36.2%) compared to the pre-Covid-19 group (49.1%; P < 0.01; OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.15–2.51). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay (P = 0.802), and 30-day mortality rate (P = 0.716; OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.38–9.54) between the two periods.ConclusionThere were no differences in 30-day readmission rates, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality with the changes to pathways. Our findings suggest the resource efficient conservative Covid-19 pathways could potentially continue long-term. However, further multi-centre studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up duration will be required to validate our findings.     

Trauma surgery by general surgeons: Still an option for proximal femoral fractures?

IntroductionSurgery for proximal femoral fractures in the Netherlands is performed by trauma surgeons, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to assess whether there is a difference in outcome for patients with proximal femoral fractures operated by trauma surgeons versus general surgeons. Secondly, the relation between hospital and surgeon volume and postoperative complications was explored.MethodsPatients of 18 years and older were included if operated for a proximal femoral fracture by a trauma surgeon or a general surgeon in two academic, eight teaching and two non-teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from January 2010 until December 2013. The combined endpoint was defined as reoperation or surgical site infection. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for patient and fracture characteristics and hospital and surgeon volume. Categories for hospital volume were >170/year (high volume), 96–170/year (medium volume) and <96/year (low volume).ResultsIn 4552 included patients 2382 (52.3%) had surgery by a trauma surgeon. Postoperative complications occurred in 276 (11.6%) patients operated by a trauma surgeon and in 258 (11.9%) operated by a general surgeon (p = 0.751). When considering confounders in a multivariate analysis, surgery by trauma surgeons was associated with less postoperative complications (OR 0.746; 95%CI 0.580–0.958; p = 0.022). Surgery in high volume hospitals was also associated with less complications (OR 0.997; 95%CI 0.995–0.999; p = 0.012). Surgeon volume was not associated with complications (OR 1.008; 95%CI 0.997–1.018; p = 0.175).ConclusionSurgery by trauma surgeons and high hospital volume are associated with less reoperations and surgical site infections for patients with proximal femoral fractures.     

Two surgeons,one patient: The impact of surgeon–surgeon familiarity on patient outcomes following mastectomy with immediate reconstruction

BackgroundMastectomy with immediate reconstruction requires the coordination and expertise of two distinct surgeons. This often results in several different combinations of mastectomy and reconstructive surgeons, but with an unknown impact on patient outcomes. We evaluate the effect of different surgical teams on complication rates following mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.MethodsRetrospective review of consecutive patients that underwent mastectomy with immediate prosthetic reconstruction from 4/1998 to 10/2008 at one institution was performed. Patients of the three highest-volume mastectomy and reconstructive surgeons were stratified by their individual combination of surgeons, resulting in nine different surgical teams. Complications were categorized by end-outcome. Appropriate statistics, including multiple linear regression, were performed.ResultsClinical characteristics were similar among patients (n = 511 patients, 699 breasts) with the same mastectomy surgeon but different reconstructive surgeon. Mean follow-up was 38.4 ± 25.7 months. For each mastectomy surgeon, the choice of reconstructive surgeon did not affect complication rates. Furthermore, the combined complication rates of the three highest-volume teams (n = 384 breasts) were similar to the remaining lower-volume teams (n = 315 breasts). Patient factors, but not the individual surgeon or surgical team, were independent risk factors for complications.DiscussionOur study suggests that among high-volume surgeons, complication rates following mastectomy with immediate reconstruction are not affected by the surgeon–surgeon familiarity. The individual surgeon's expertise, and patient risk factors, may have a greater impact on outcomes than the team's experience with each other. These results validate the efficacy and safety of the surgeon distribution model currently used by many breast surgery practices.     

Public Perceptions of Resuming Elective Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BackgroundMany U.S. health systems are grappling with how to safely resume elective surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We used online crowdsourcing to explore public perceptions and concerns toward resuming elective surgery during the pandemic, and to determine factors associated with the preferred timing of surgery after health systems reopen.MethodsA 21-question survey was completed by 722 members of the public using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with the timing of preferred surgery after health systems reopen.ResultsMost (61%) participants were concerned with contracting COVID-19 during the surgical process, primarily during check-in and in waiting room areas, as well as through excessive interactions with staff. Overall, 57% would choose to have their surgery at a hospital over an outpatient surgery center. About 1 in 4 (27%) would feel comfortable undergoing elective surgery in the first month of health systems reopening. After multivariable adjustment, native English speaking (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.04-6.4; P = .042), male sex (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .001), and Veterans Affairs insurance (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.1-18.7; P = .036) were independent predictors of preferring earlier surgery.ConclusionWomen and non-native English speakers may be more hesitant to undergo elective surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite concerns of contagion, more than half of the public favors a hospital setting over an outpatient surgery center for their elective surgery. Concerted efforts to minimize patient congestion and unnecessary face-to-face interactions may prove most effective in reducing public anxiety and concerns over the safety of resuming elective care.     

Crisis change management during COVID-19 in the elective orthopaedic hospital: Easing the trauma burden of acute hospitals

IntroductionWith the emergence of the 2019 novel coronavirus and its resulting pandemic status in March 2020 all routine elective orthopaedic surgery was cancelled in our institution. The developing picture in Italy, of acute hospitals becoming overwhelmed with treating patients suffering with severe and life-threatening symptoms from the disease, prompted the orthopaedic surgeons to formulate a plan to transfer trauma patients requiring surgery to the elective hospital to unburden the acute hospital system.MethodsUnder the threat of this pandemic; protocols and algorithms were established for referral, acceptance and care of trauma patients from acute hospitals in the region. Each day, as new guidance on COVID-19 emerged, our process and algorithms were adjusted to reflect pertinent change.ResultsThe screening of all patients referred, worked well in keeping our hospital “COVID-free” with respect to patients undergoing operations. An upward trend in cases referred reflected the decreased capacity in the acute hospitals due to rising cases of COVID-19 within the hospital network. During the first 7 weeks of the pandemic 308 operations were performed, (31.1% upper limb, 33.4% lower limb, 4.1% spine, 14.1% urgent elective, 17.4% plastic surgery cases). Regular review and audit of the activity in the hospital as well as communication with the referring teams enabled appropriate planning to accommodate the increase in case-mix as the need arose.DiscussionThis paper details the steps that were taken in planning for such a change in management specific to the orthopaedic surgery setting and the lessons learnt during this process. The success of the development of this pathway was facilitated by clear communication channels, flexibility to adapt to changing process and feedback from all stakeholders. The implementation of this pathway allowed the unburdening of acute hospitals dealing with the pandemic that was steadily reducing access to operating theatres and anaesthetic resources.     

Surgical rates in the Canadian provinces, 1968 to 1972.

Canadian and provincial rates for eight elective and seven nonelective operations were determined from 1968 through 1972. Of the elective procedures considered, the Canadian tonsillectomy rate decreased substantially and rates for hysterectomy and cholecystectomy showed large increases. The provinces reflected national trends for these three operations. Except for coletomy, which increased 36%, rates for the nonelective procedures showed little change. Correlations between the numbers of surgical personnel and the elective surgery rates in the provinces were demonstrated in 3 of the 5 years; these are best shown at the extremes. Newfoundland had the fewest surgeons, a bed: population ratio below the national average and the lowest combined elective surgical rate; Alberta ranked high in all three categories. In the seven other provinces, there was less variation in the number of surgeons, hospital beds and elective surgical rates. Provinces with extensive insurance coverage prior to universal medical insurance reduced their combined elective surgery rate, while provinces where fewer people were insured showed increases. In the absence of different methods of payment for surgical services and marginal changes in the number of hospital beds and the number of surgeons, more insured persons produced more elective surgery.     

The provision of a time-critical elective surgical service during the COVID-19 Crisis: a UK experience

IntroductionWith the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, all elective surgery was temporarily suspended in the UK, allowing for diversion of resource to manage the anticipated surge of critically unwell patients. Continuing to deliver time-critical surgical care is important to avoid excess morbidity and mortality from pathologies unrelated to COVID-19. We describe the implementation and short-term surgical outcomes from a system to deliver time-critical elective surgical care to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.Materials and methodsA protocol for the prioritisation and safe delivery of time-critical surgery at a COVID-19 ‘clean’ site was implemented at the Nuffield Health Exeter Hospital, an independent sector hospital in the southwest of England. Outcomes to 30 days postoperatively were recorded, including unplanned admissions after daycase surgery, readmissions and complications, as well as the incidence of perioperative COVID-19 infection in patients and staff.ResultsA total of 128 surgical procedures were performed during a 31-day period by a range of specialties including breast, plastics, urology, gynaecology, vascular and cardiology. There was one unplanned admission and and two readmissions. Six complications were identified, and all were Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2. All 128 patients had preoperative COVID-19 swabs, one of which was positive and the patient had their surgery delayed. Ten patients were tested for COVID-19 postoperatively, with none testing positive.ConclusionThis study has demonstrated the implementation of a safe system for delivery of time-critical elective surgical care at a COVID-19 clean site. Other healthcare providers may benefit from implementation of similar methodology as hospitals plan to restart elective surgery.     

Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology Surgical Improvement Strategies Project: Phase I Outcomes

BackgroundThis study aimed to improve institutional value-based patient care processes, provider collaboration, and continuous process improvement mechanisms for primary total hip arthroplasties and total knee arthroplasties through establishment of a perioperative orthopedic surgical home.MethodsOn June 1, 2017, an institutionally sponsored initiative commenced known as the orthopedic surgery and anesthesiology surgical improvement strategy project. A multidisciplinary team consisting of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, advanced practice providers, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, social workers, and hospital administration met regularly to identify areas for improvement in the preoperative, intraoperative, and post-anesthesia care unit, and postoperative phases of care.ResultsMean hospital length of stay decreased from 2.7 to 2.2 days (P < .001), incidence of discharge to a skilled nursing facility decreased from 24% to 17% (P = .008), and the number of patients receiving physical therapy on the day of surgery increased from 10% to 100% (P < .001). Press-Ganey scores increased from 74.9 to 75.8 (94th percentile), while mean and maximum pain scores, opioid consumption, and hospital readmission rates remained unchanged (lowest P = .29). Annual total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty surgical volume increased by 11.4%. Decreased hospital length of stay and increased surgical volume yielded a combined annual savings of $2.5 million across the 9 involved orthopedic surgeons.ConclusionThrough application of perioperative surgical home tools and concepts, key advances included phase of care integration, enhanced data management, decreased length of stay, coordinated perioperative management, increased surgical volume without personnel additions, and more efficient communication and patient care flow across preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases.Level of EvidenceIII Therapeutic.     

An evaluation of stereoacuity (3D vision) in practising surgeons across a range of surgical specialities

BackgroundJudging depth is important in surgery. Although there are several cues that permit depth perception, stereoacuity has been singled out as a possible predictor of surgical ability. However, it is not clear whether high-grade stereoacuity is necessary for a career in surgery. To help answer this, we aimed to evaluate stereoacuities in practising surgeons across a range of surgical specialities.MethodsWe recorded stereoacuity values on 66 surgeons working at a London teaching hospital using three standard stereotests: Titmus, TNO and Frisby. There were 36 Trainees and 30 Consultants, covering 12 surgical specialities.ResultsMedian stereoacuities (with range) for the whole group were: 40 s arc on Titmus (40–800), 30 s arc on TNO (15–480) and 20 s arc on Frisby (20–600). Four surgeons had no recordable stereoacuity on TNO, and one was also unrecordable on Titmus. Three of these four were Consultants. Depending on the test used, high-grade stereopsis was found in 74%–83% of surgeons while reduced stereopsis was found in 2%–14% of surgeons.ConclusionWhile we found that most surgeons in current NHS practice have high-grade stereoacuity, there are also surgeons with reduced stereopsis and some with no stereopsis. The findings do not therefore support the assertion that high-grade stereopsis is a universal requirement for a career in surgery. It would be difficult to justify setting a stereoacuity criterion for entrance into a surgical training programme.     

Surgeon perceptions of volume threshold and essential practices for pediatric thyroidectomy✰

IntroductionThe topics of sub-specialization and regionalization of care have garnered increased attention among pediatric surgeons. Thyroid surgeries are one such sub-specialty and are commonly concentrated within practices. A national survey was conducted examining current surgeon practices and beliefs surrounding pediatric thyroid surgery.MethodsNon-resident members of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) were surveyed in October 2020. Respondents were stratified based on self-reported thyroid surgical experience. Those who performed thyroid surgery were asked about surgical technique and operative practices; those who did not were asked about referral patterns. All respondents were asked about perceptions surrounding the volume-outcome relationship for pediatric thyroid surgery.ResultsAmong 1015 APSA members, 405 (40%) responded, with 79% (317/400) practicing at academic hospitals, 58% (232/401) practicing in major metropolitan area, and 41% (161/392) with over 10 years of attending pediatric surgery experience. Most respondents (88%, n = 356) agreed that thyroid surgery volume affects outcome, though wide variation was reported in the annual case threshold for “high volume” surgery. Eighty-four respondents (21%) reported performing ≥ 1 pediatric thyroid surgery in the past year. Of these, 82% routinely use recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring, 32% routinely send hemithyroidectomy patients home the same day, and there was little consensus surrounding postoperative hypocalcemia management. The majority of respondents endorse performing thyroid procedures with a colleague.ConclusionsPediatric thyroid surgery appears to be performed by a subset of active pediatric surgeons, most of whom endorse the use of a dual operating team. More evidence is needed to build consensus around additional perioperative practices.     

A mentorship-based preclinical elective increases exposure,confidence, and interest in surgery

Background

The predicted shortage of surgeons is of growing concern with declining medical student interest in surgical careers. We hypothesized that earlier exposure to operative experiences and the establishment of resident mentors through a preclinical elective would enhance student confidence and interest in surgery.

Methods

We developed a preclinical elective in surgery, which served as an organized curriculum for junior medical students to experience surgery through a paired resident-mentorship model. We assessed student exposure and confidence with clinical activities before and after the elective (N = 24, 100% response rate). We compared these students with a cohort of peers not enrolled in the elective (N = 147, 67% response rate).

Results

We found significantly improved confidence (2.8 vs 4.4) and clinical exposure (2.4 vs 4.3) before versus after the elective, with precourse scores equal to matched peers.

Conclusions

This elective incorporates elements that have been shown to positively influence student decision making in surgical career choice. The mentorship model promotes residents as educators, whereas the elective provides a means for early identification of students interested in surgery.     

The Impact of Arthroplasty Fellowship Training on Total Joint Arthroplasty: Comparison of Peri-Operative Metrics between Fellowship-Trained Surgeons and Non-Fellowship-Trained Surgeons

BackgroundWe sought to identify differences between total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) performed by adult reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons (FT) than non-fellowship-trained surgeons (NFT).MethodsA single-institution database was utilized to identify patients who underwent elective TJA between 2016 and 2019.ResultsIn total, 16,882 TJAs were identified: 9111 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 7771 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Patients undergoing THA by FT surgeons were older (63.11 vs 61.84 years, P < .001), more likely to be white, insured by Medicare, and less likely to be active smokers (P < .0001). Both surgical time (90.03 vs 113.1 minutes, P < .0001) and mean length of stay (LOS) (1.85 vs 2.72 days, P < .0001) were significantly shorter for THAs performed by FT surgeons than NFT surgeons. A significantly greater percentage of patients were discharged home after THA by FT surgeons than NFT surgeons (88.7% vs 85.2%, P = .002). FT patients were quicker to mobilize with therapy and required 25% less opioids. TKAs performed by FT surgeons were associated with shorter surgical times (87.4 vs 94.92 minutes, P < .0001), LOS (2.62 vs 2.84 days, P < .0001), and nearly 19% less opioid requirement in the peri-operative period. In addition to higher Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care scores associated with FT surgeons after TKA, a significantly greater percentage of patients were discharged home after TKA by FT surgeons than NFT surgeons (83.97% vs 80.16%, P < .001).ConclusionFor both THA and TKA, patients had significantly shorter surgical times, LOS, and required less opioids when their procedure was performed by FT surgeons compared to NTF surgeons. Patients who had their TJA performed by a FT surgeon achieved higher Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care scores and were discharged home more often than NFT surgeons. In an era of value-based care, more attention should be paid to the patient outcomes and financial implications associated with arthroplasty fellowship training.Level III EvidenceRetrospective Cohort Study.