An Indian surgeon's perspective on management of asymptomatic gallstones.

INTRODUCTION: Cholelithiasis is widely prevalent in India, with a majority of patients being asymptomatic while a small proportion experiencing mild complications. In the laparoscopic era, the rate of cholecystectomies has increased owing to early recovery and fewer complications. In asymptomatic patients, the risk of complications must be balanced against the treatment benefit. Recent guidelines suggest no prophylactic cholecystectomy in asymptomatic patients. We aimed to find out the Indian surgeons' perspective on asymptomatic gallstone management. METHODS: A cross-sectional e-survey was conducted of practicing surgeons, onco-surgeons and gastrointestinal-surgeons in India. The survey had questions regarding their perspective on laparoscopic cholecystectomy and treatment modalities in asymptomatic gallstones. RESULTS: A total of 196 surgeons responded to the survey. Their mean age was 42.3 years. Overall, 111 (57%) respondents worked in the private sector. Most surgeons (164) agreed that the rate of cholecystectomy has increased since the advent of laparoscopy; 137 (70%) respondents agreed that they would not operate on patients without risk factors. Common bile duct stones, chronic hemolytic diseases, transplant recipients, and diabetes mellitus were the risk factors. Majority of the participants agreed on not performing a cholecystectomy in patients with asymptomatic gallstones. CONCLUSION: There exists a lack of consensus among Indian surgeons on asymptomatic gallstone management in India. Where the majority of cases are asymptomatic and do not require surgery, certain comorbidities can influence the line of treatment in individual patients. Currently, the treatment guidelines for asymptomatic patients need to be established as cholecystectomies may be overperformed due to the fear of development of complications.

Beyond the Ivory Tower: Perception of academic global surgery by surgeons in low- and middle-income countries.

Interest in global surgery has surged amongst academics and practitioners in high-income countries (HICs), but it is unclear how frontline surgical practitioners in low-resource environments perceive the new field or its benefit. Our objective was to assess perceptions of academic global surgery amongst surgeons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted a cross-sectional e-survey among surgical trainees and consultants in 62 LMICs, as defined by the World Bank in 2020. This paper is a sub-analysis highlighting the perception of academic surgery and the association between practice setting and responses using Pearson's Chi-square test. Analyses were completed using Stata15. The survey received 416 responses, including 173 consultants (41.6%), 221 residents (53.1%), 8 medical graduates (1.9%), and 14 fellows (3.4%). Of these, 72 responses (17.3%) were from low-income countries, 137 (32.9%) from lower-middle-income countries, and 207 (49.8%) from upper-middle-income countries. 286 respondents (68.8%) practiced in urban areas, 34 (8.2%) in rural areas, and 84 (20.2%) in both rural and urban areas. Only 185 (44.58%) were familiar with the term "global surgery." However, 326 (79.3%) agreed that collaborating with HIC surgeons for research is beneficial to being a global surgeon, 323 (78.8%) agreed that having an HIC co-author improves likelihood of publication in a reputable journal, 337 (81.6%) agreed that securing research funding is difficult in their country, 195 (47.3%) agreed that their institutions consider research for promotion, 252 (61.0%) agreed that they can combine research and clinical practice, and 336 (82%) are willing to train HIC medical students and residents. A majority of these LMIC surgeons noted limited academic incentives to perform research in the field. The academic global surgery community should take note and foster equitable collaborations to ensure that this critical segment of stakeholders is engaged and has fewer barriers to participation.

A nationwide survey on the preference of Indian undergraduate medical students to go abroad for higher studies and residency.

Context: Getting residency training abroad is a critical motivator in the emigration of Indian medical students. Brain drain is an emerging issue, especially for developing countries as it causes a shortage of trained staff in the donor country. Aim: We aimed to survey Indian medical students to know about their intentions to get trained abroad and to understand the factors influencing their decision. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, we surveyed Indian undergraduate medical students of all professional years, including internship. A validated questionnaire collected data on students' demographics and educational characteristics, intention to study overseas or stay back in India, and factors influencing their decision. Results: Out of a total of 1199 responses (51.1% males, 48.9% females), 45.0% partakers had planned to pursue their residency abroad, while 33.8% wanted to stay in India and 21.2% were undecided. Better lifestyle and higher pay grades overseas were viewed as the most significant barriers to staying back in India and a key influencer in decision-making among the maximum number of students (412; 76.3%). On the other hand, a whopping 58.2% of participants opined that they wanted to stay back in India for taking care of their parents. Conclusions: Source countries with better healthcare facilities and better incomes tend to attract medical students. Awareness among medical educators regarding constantly changing curricula, a shift to a competency-based education system, better pay grades, limited working hours, and interventions to mitigate workplace violence could help prevent brain drain among Indian medical students and graduates.

Breast Conservative Surgery for Breast Cancer: Indian Surgeon's Preferences and Factors Influencing Them.

Background: It is well established that disease-free survival and overall survival after breast conservation surgery (BCS) followed by radiotherapy are equivalent to that after mastectomy. However, in Asian countries, the rate of BCS continues to remain low. The cause may be multifactorial including the patient's choice, availability and accessibility of infrastructure, and surgeon's choice. We aimed to elucidate the Indian surgeons' perspective while choosing between BCS and mastectomy, in women oncologically eligible for BCS. Methods: We conducted a survey-based cross-sectional study in January-February 2021. Indian surgeons with general surgical or specialised oncosurgical training, who consented to participate were included in the study. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to assess the effect of study variables on offering mastectomy or BCS. Results: A total of 347 responses were included. The mean age of the participants was 43 ± 11 years. Sixty-three of the surgeons were in the 25-44 years age group with the majority (80%) being males. 66.4% of surgeons 'almost always' offered BCS to oncologically eligible patients. Surgeons who had undergone specialised training in oncosurgery or breast conservation surgery were 35 times more likely to offer BCS (p < 0.01). Surgeons working in hospitals with in-house radiation oncology facilities were 9 times more likely to offer BCS (p < 0.05). Surgeons' years of practice, age, sex and hospital setting did not influence the surgery offered. Conclusion: Two-thirds of Indian surgeons preferred BCS over mastectomy. Lack of radiotherapy facilities and specialised surgical training were deterrents to offering BCS to eligible women. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-022-01601-y.

Academic Output in Global Surgery after the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) published its seminal report in 2015, carving a niche for global surgery academia. Six years after the LCoGS, a scoping review was conducted to see how the term 'global surgery' is characterized by the literature and how it relates to LCoGS and its domains. METHODS: PubMed was searched for publications between January 2015 and February 2021 that used the term 'global surgery' in the title, abstract, or key words or cited the LCoGS. Variables extracted included LCoGS domains, authorship metrics, geographic scope, and clinical specialty. RESULTS: The search captured 938 articles that qualified for data extraction. Nearly 80% of first and last authors had high-income country affiliations. Africa was the most frequently investigated region, though many countries within the region were under-represented. The World Journal of Surgery was the most frequent journal, publishing 13.9% of all articles. General surgery, pediatric surgery, and neurosurgery were the most represented specialties. Of the LCoGS domains, healthcare delivery and management were the most studied, while economics and financing were the least studied. CONCLUSION: A lack of consensus on the definition of global surgery remains. Additional research is needed in economics and financing, while obstetrics and trauma are under-represented in literature using the term 'global surgery'. Efforts in academic global surgery must give a voice to those carrying the global surgery agenda forward on the frontlines. Focusing on research capacity-building and encouraging contribution by local partners will lead to a stronger, more cohesive global surgery community.