Rapidly Increasing Number and Cost of Residency Applications in Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical specialties represent the most competitive residency positions to obtain, and applicants for these spots may apply to increasingly more programs in an attempt to match. We describe trends in residency applications across all surgical specialties from 2017 to 2021 application cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review of the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 surgical residency application cycles used the American Association of Medical Colleges' Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) databases. Data from a total of 72,171 applicants to United States surgical residencies during the study's time period were included. The 2021 ERAS fee schedule was used to calculate the cost of applications. RESULTS: The number of applicants across the study interval remains unchanged. Trends suggest more women and underrepresented minorities in medicine are applying to surgical residencies today compared to 5 years ago. The mean number of applications per applicant increased 32.0% from 39.3 in 2017 to 51.8 in 2021, resulting in an increased application fee cost of $329 per applicant. Mean total cost for application fees alone in 2021 were $1211 per applicant. In 2021, the cost of applying to surgical residency for all applicants was over $26 million, a nearly $8 million increase from 2017. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in the number of applications per applicant in the past 5 residency application cycles. Increased applications create barriers and burdens for applicants, and residency program personnel. These rapid increases are unsustainable and require intervention, although a viable solution has yet to be elucidated.

Anesthesiology Articles Published in 2020: A Review and Characterization of COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID-19 Publications in Top Anesthesiology Journals.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on the practice of medicine worldwide, particularly in anesthesiology. As the clinical realm has rapidly adjusted to the realities of the pandemic, anesthesiology literature has also changed significantly to reflect this. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on anesthesiology literature. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the COVID-19-related literature in the anesthesiology community would gain more interest than non-COVID-19-related articles. A total of 15 anesthesiology-related journals with the highest impact factor in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), were selected for data collection. An advanced PubMed search identified 5,722 COVID-19-related articles published by these journals in 2020. Next, articles with titles including "corona," "COVID," "COVID-19," "pandemic," "SARS," or "SARS-CoV-2" were selected for inclusion in the study, which resulted in 676 (12%) articles. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the Altmetric score, which is a weighted calculation of the attention an article receives online, for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 articles. Articles were then further characterized across multiple different variables, including country of origin, month published, type of article, and subspecialty of anesthesiology it pertained to. Of the 15 journals investigated, 676 (12%) articles of the 5,722 total articles published were found to be COVID-19-related material. The majority of the articles were found to be published in April (18%), May (19.5%), and June (14%). The majority of these articles were related either to general anesthesia (operating room anesthesiology that is not tied to a particular subspecialty fellowship track) (48%) or critical care (39%). By article type, most were determined to be editorial (71%) in nature, followed by original research articles (21%), of which most were cross-sectional (55%) studies. When compared with non-COVID-19-related articles, COVID-19-related articles had a significantly greater Altmetric score (29.518 versus 8.6333, p < 0.001). Of the COVID-19-related articles, original articles had the greatest Altmetric score, when compared to editorials and guidelines (54.794 versus 20.777 versus 40.643, p < 0.002). The response of the academic anesthesiology community to the COVID-19 pandemic was strong and timely, with a particularly strong focus on critical care anesthesia. The impact of the pandemic was strongly felt by the anesthesiology community, and their timely response served to guide our country and world through an incredibly challenging time. The pandemic highlighted the value of anesthesiologists worldwide, not only in the operating room setting but particularly as critical care physicians.

Nationwide analysis of plastic and reconstructive procedural volume in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to define the impact of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the volume of common plastic and reconstructive procedures in the United States. METHODS: TrinetX is a national, federated database that was utilized in surveying plastic and reconstructive procedural volumes among 53 Healthcare organizations (HCO) between March 2018 and May 2021. This timeframe was divided into pre-pandemic (March 2018 to February 2020) and pandemic periods (March 2020 to May 2021). Each period was then sub-divided into four seasons of the year and the mean monthly procedural volume per HCO was compared. A student's t-tests comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic seasonal mean procedural volumes were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 366,032 patient encounters among 53 HCO were included. The average seasonal volume per HCO of all procedures reduced from 872.11 procedures during pre-pandemic seasons to 827.36 during pandemic seasons. Spring 2020 vol declined for most procedures as 15 of 24 (63%) assessed procedure categories experienced statistically significant decreases. Spring 2021 experienced rebounds with 15 of 24 (63%) assessed procedures showing statistically significant increases. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic period, the average procedural volume per HCO of 14 procedure categories was significantly less than the pre-pandemic average procedural volume. Overall, an inverse relationship was observed between novel COVID-19 cases and plastic and reconstructive surgery procedure volumes in the United States.

Breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic: Single institution experience from the pandemic's epicenter in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically changed the delivery of breast cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of the pandemic on breast cancer screening, treatment, and reconstruction at a single institution in New York City. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the number of mammograms, lumpectomies, mastectomies, and breast reconstruction operations performed between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021. Outcomes analyzed included changes in mammography, oncologic surgery, and breast reconstruction surgery volume before, during and after the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: Mammography volume declined by 11% in March-May of 2020. Oncologic breast surgeries and reconstructive surgeries similarly declined by 6.8% and 11%, respectively, in 2020 compared with 2019, reaching their lowest levels in April 2020. The volume of all procedures increased during the summer of 2020. Mammography volumes in June and July 2020 were found to be at pre-COVID levels, and in October-December 2020 were 15% higher than in 2019. Oncologic breast surgeries saw a similar rebound in May 2020, with 24.6% more cases performed compared with May 2019. Breast reconstruction volumes increased, though changes in the types of reconstruction were noted. Oncoplastic closures were more common during the pandemic, while two-stage implant reconstruction and immediate autologous reconstruction decreased by 27% and 43%, respectively. All procedures are on track to increase in volume in 2021 compared to that in 2020. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the volume of breast cancer surveillance, surgical treatment, and reconstruction procedures. While it is reassuring that volumes have rebounded in 2021, efforts must be made to emphasize screening and treatment procedures in the face of subsequent surges, such as that recently attributable to the Delta and Omicron variants.

Breast Reconstruction during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for breast reconstruction. Many professional organizations initially placed restrictions on breast reconstruction, leading surgeons to conceive innovative protocols for offering breast reconstruction. This study reviewed the current evidence on breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide guidance for surgeons facing future crises. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies (1) describing implant and autologous breast reconstruction following mastectomy and (2) occurring during or pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of the 1347 studies identified, 26 were included. Studies discussed type of reconstruction (18, 69%), complications (11, 42%), timing of reconstruction (10, 38%), protocols (10, 38%), COVID-19 screening (7, 27%), and length of hospital stay (7, 27%). The type of reconstruction varied depending on the stage of the pandemic: early on, autologous breast reconstruction was halted to preserve resources, but was later resumed. Within implant-based reconstruction, direct-to-implant was favored over serial tissue expansion. Several protocols were developed, with many emphasizing multidisciplinary collaborations for patient selection, use of specialized measures to reduce risk of COVID-19 transmission, and optimization of same-day discharge. Complication rates following breast reconstruction were similar to pre-pandemic rates. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the landscape of breast reconstruction by raising important questions about delivery of care, cost, and resource utilization. The findings of this review may inform surgeons as they plan for similar future crises or strive for improved patient care and efficacy even during nonpandemic times.

Chronicling the effect of COVID-19 on orthopedic literature.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has had a significant impact on orthopedic surgery practice, but there has been little investigation of the effects of COVID-19 on the orthopedic surgery literature. Additionally, because orthopedic research plays a vital role in physician education, changes to the characteristics and content of published literature can have lasting impacts on future teaching and learning. This paper represents the first known analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on peer-reviewed articles published in orthopedic surgery journals. METHODS: The 20 orthopedic journals with the highest impact factors in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports, were included in this study. Using PubMed and COVID-19 related keywords as well as manual screening, a final count of 199 articles were assessed for this study and subsequently sorted by country of origin, orthopedic subspecialty, article type, and general theme. Kruskal Wallis and Pearson's Chi-squared tests were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: Fourteen journals published articles relating to COVID-19, representing 26 countries with the United States (37%) and United Kingdom (13%) publishing the greatest proportion of all COVID-19 articles. Sixty percent of publications discussed COVID-19's impact on the overall field of orthopedic surgery, with the remainder focusing on specific subspecialties. Forty-seven percent of publications were original research articles while 46% were editorials or commentaries. The median time to publication for all COVID-19 related articles was 24.5 days, compared to the 129 days reported for orthopedic journals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (p < 0.001). In the first 100 articles published, 49% (n = 49) originated exclusively from United States institutions, whereas only 25% (n = 25) of the next ninety-nine articles had US-only institutions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the characteristics, content, and time to publication of the orthopedic surgery literature. The data and ideas presented in this paper should help streamline future, formal analysis on the lasting implications of COVID-19 on orthopedic surgery practice, teaching, and learning.

Applicant Preferences for Virtual Interviews: Insights from the 2020-21 Integrated Plastic Surgery Application Cycle.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented residency application cycle that required the use of virtual interviews. The inaugural class of applicants participating in virtual interviews were surveyed concerning their preferences and suggestions for future application cycles. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 349 individuals who applied for an integrated plastic surgery residency position at three institutions during the 2020-21 application cycle. Responses were analyzed to determine the most popular attributes of virtual interviews. RESULTS: Response rate was 44%. Eighty-six percent of applicants valued having time to consider their interview offers before scheduling; however, nearly one-third felt the instructions provided by programs lacked clarity and did not abide by the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons guidelines. Eighty-two percent of applicants valued having a preinterview social, and most preferred smaller breakout rooms organized by themes. A short interview day (less than three hours) was associated with less applicant familiarity with the program, its people, and its location when compared with medium (three to seven hours) and long (more than seven hours) interview days (P < 0.001 for all). Eighty percent of applicants preferred an interview day where they were placed into interview rooms by a program coordinator. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual interview format can be optimized in many ways to benefit both applicants and programs. The data presented in this article provide suggestions for future iterations of virtual interviews.