Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Surge on Surgical Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including surgical care. While many studies examined the effect of the pandemic on different patient outcomes, there are none to date examining the impact of the pandemic surge on surgical outcomes. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 surges on surgical outcomes using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of 7436 patients who underwent surgery between February 2020 and December 2022 was conducted. Patients were divided into those who underwent surgery during the surge of the pandemic (n = 1217) or outside that period (n = 6219). Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, operation time, transfusion, reoperation, and specific postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used in our analysis. All analyses were conducted using the software "R" version 4.2.1. Statistical significance was set at α = .05 level. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, we found no significant difference in 30-day mortality and morbidity (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: .89-1.226, P = .5173) or 30-day mortality only (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: .788-2.14, P = .1364) between the two groups. No significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results to the multivariable logistic regression. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of increased 30-day mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing surgery during the COVID-19 surges compared to those undergoing surgery outside that period. Our results suggest that surgical care was maintained despite the challenges of the pandemic surges.

A Narrative Review on Intraoperative Adverse Events: Risks, Prevention, and Mitigation.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events from surgical interventions are common. They can occur at various stages of surgical care, and they carry a heavy burden on the different parties involved. While extensive research and efforts have been made to better understand the etiologies of postoperative complications, more research on intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) remains to be done. METHODS: In this article, we reviewed the literature looking at iAEs to discuss their risk factors, their implications on surgical care, and the current efforts to mitigate and manage them. RESULTS: Risk factors for iAEs are diverse and are dictated by patient-related risk factors, the nature and complexity of the procedures, the surgeon's experience, and the work environment of the operating room. The implications of iAEs vary according to their severity and include increased rates of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, increased length of hospital stay and readmission, increased care cost, and a second victim emotional toll on the operating surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: While transparent reporting of iAEs remains a challenge, many efforts are using new measures not only to report iAEs but also to provide better surveillance, prevention, and mitigation strategies to reduce their overall adverse impact.

Gamification of robotic simulation to train general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Gamification applies game design elements to non-game contexts in order to engage participation and increase learner motivation. Robotic surgery is gaining popularity in general surgery but requires specialized technical skills. We sought to determine whether gamification of robotic simulation training could increase robotic simulator utilization among general surgery residents. METHODS: General surgery residents were recruited and sent weekly progress on simulator performance including leaderboards for 4 weeks during the intervention periods. There were also two control periods setup in an ABAB study design. Usage time and mean scores were compared between the control periods and intervention periods. A post-study qualitative assessment interview using semi-structured interviews determined barriers and motivational components of simulator usage. RESULTS: Fifteen general surgery residents enrolled in the study (n = 15). Intervention increased total simulator usage time 9.7-fold from 153 to 1485 min. Total simulator days increased threefold from 9 to 27 days. Resident participation increased from 33 to 53%. Median average scores were higher during the intervention periods (58.8 and 81.9 vs 44.0). During the first intervention period, median individual-level simulator usage time increased 17 min (P = 0.03). However, there was no individual-level increase in median usage minutes or days during the second intervention period. Qualitative assessment determined barriers to be limited time due to clinical duties, and simulator availability while motivational factors included competitive factors such as leaderboards and gaming aspects. Potential improvements were increasing attending visibility of scores to increase recognition of progress by the residents and creating dedicated time for training. CONCLUSION: Gamification of robotic simulation training increased general surgery resident participation, usage time and scores. Impact was not durable. Instituting dedicated practice time and more attending engagement may increase trainee motivation and performance.

A comparison of NOTES transvaginal and laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures based upon task analysis.

BACKGROUND: A virtual reality-based simulator for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures may be used for training and discovery of new tools and procedures. Our previous study (Sankaranarayanan et al. in Surg Endosc 27:1607-1616, 2013) shows that developing such a simulator for the transvaginal cholecystectomy procedure using a rigid endoscope will have the most impact on the field. However, prior to developing such a simulator, a thorough task analysis is necessary to determine the most important phases, tasks, and subtasks of this procedure. METHODS: 19 rigid endoscope transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy procedures and 11 traditional laparoscopic procedures have been recorded and de-identified prior to analysis. Hierarchical task analysis was conducted for the rigid endoscope transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy. A time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of the transvaginal NOTES and laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures. Finally, a comparison of electrosurgery-based errors was performed by two independent qualified personnel. RESULTS: The most time-consuming tasks for both laparoscopic and NOTES cholecystectomy are removing areolar and connective tissue surrounding the gallbladder, exposing Calot's triangle, and dissecting the gallbladder off the liver bed with electrosurgery. There is a positive correlation of performance time between the removal of areolar and connective tissue and electrosurgery dissection tasks in NOTES (r = 0.415) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (r = 0.684) with p < 0.10. During the electrosurgery task, the NOTES procedures had fewer errors related to lack of progress in gallbladder removal. Contrarily, laparoscopic procedures had fewer errors due to the instrument being out of the camera view. CONCLUSION: A thorough task analysis and video-based quantification of NOTES cholecystectomy has identified the most time-consuming tasks. A comparison of the surgical errors during electrosurgery gallbladder dissection establishes that the NOTES procedure, while still new, is not inferior to the established laparoscopic procedure.

General surgery vs fellowship: the role of the Independent Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: To compare career choices of residency graduates from Independent Academic Medical Center (IAMC) and University Academic Medical Center (UAMC) programs and evaluate program directors' perceptions of residents' motivations for pursuing general surgery or fellowships. DESIGN: From May to August 2011, an electronic survey collected information on program characteristics, graduates' career pursuits, and career motivations. Fisher's exact tests were calculated to compare responses by program type. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent program characteristics associated with graduates pursuing general surgery. SETTING: Data were collected on graduates over 3 years (2009-2011). PARTICIPANTS: Surgery residency program directors. RESULTS: Seventy-four program directors completed the survey; 42% represented IAMCs. IAMCs reported more graduates choosing general surgery. Over one-quarter of graduates pursued general surgery from 52% of IAMC vs 37% of UAMC programs (p = 0.243). Career choices varied significantly by region: over one-quarter of graduates pursue general surgery from 78% of Western, 60% of Midwestern, 40% of Southern, and 24% of Northeastern programs (p = 0.018). On multivariate analysis, IAMC programs were independently associated with more graduates choosing general surgery (p = 0.017), after adjustment for other program characteristics. Seventy-five percent of UAMC programs reported over three-fourths of graduates receive first choice fellowship, compared with only 52% of IAMC programs (p = 0.067). Fellowships were comparable among IAMC and UAMC programs, most commonly MIS/Bariatric (16%), Critical Care/Trauma (16%), and Vascular (14%). IAMC and UAMC program directors cite similar reasons for graduate career choices. CONCLUSIONS: Most general surgery residents undergo fellowship training. Graduates from IAMC and UAMC programs pursue similar specialties, but UAMC programs report more first choice acceptance. IAMC programs may graduate proportionately more general surgeons. Further studies directly evaluating surgical residents' career choices are warranted to understand the influence of independent and university programs in shaping these choices and to develop strategies for reducing the general surgeon shortage.