The association of permanent versus absorbable fixation on developing chronic post-herniorrhaphy groin pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Fixation of mesh during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair is thought to contribute to chronic post-herniorrhaphy groin pain (CGP). In contrast to permanent tacks, absorbable tacks are hypothesized to minimize the likelihood of CGP. This study aimed to compare the rates of CGP after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair between absorbable versus permanent fixation at maximum follow-up. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (NCT03835351). All patients were contacted at maximum follow-up after surgery to administer EuraHS quality of life (QoL) surveys. The pain and restriction of activity subdomains of the survey were utilized. The primary outcome was rate of CGP, as defined by a EuraHS QoL pain domain score ≥ 4 measured at ≥ 1 year postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were pain and restriction of activity domain scores and hernia recurrence at maximum follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 28 ± 11 months. 181 patients received permanent tacks and 157 patients received absorbable tacks during their repair. At maximum follow-up, the rates of CGP (27 [15%] vs 28 [18%], P = 0.47), average pain scores (1.78 ± 4.38 vs 2.32 ± 5.40, P = 0.22), restriction of activity scores (1.39 ± 4.32 vs 2.48 ± 7.45, P = 0.18), and the number of patients who reported an inguinal bulge (18 [9.9%] vs 15 [9.5%], P = 0.9) were similar between patients with permanent versus absorbable tacks. On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference in the odds of CGP between the two groups (OR 1.23, 95% CI [0.60, 2.50]). CONCLUSION: Mesh fixation with permanent tacks does not appear to increase the risk of CGP after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair when compared to fixation with absorbable tacks. Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate this relationship.

Factors associated with matching into research-focused dermatology residency programs.

Although dermatology is one of the most competitive specialties to match into, there is limited transparency in the residency match process. In this retrospective cohort study of 2234 allopathic medical graduates, we identify applicant characteristics associated with matching into research oriented dermatology programs. Many of the statistically significant variables in our study, including PhD/MD status, graduating from a Top-25 NIH funded medical school, increasing total number of pre-residency publications (PRPs), and increasing number of high-impact PRPs, correlate with future academic employment. Although literature shows an association between an increasing number of first author PRPs and future academic employment, we did not find number of first or last author PRPs to be predictive of matching into a research oriented residency program. A more comprehensive evaluation of an applicant's research output, considering both the final products of an applicant's research endeavors and an applicant's role in various projects, may better approximate an applicant's commitment to academics.

Trends of Research Output of Allopathic Medical Students Matching Into Dermatology, 2007-2018.

IMPORTANCE: According to the National Residency Matching Program's biennial Charting Outcomes in the Match (NRMP ChOM) reports, the mean number of research items of matched allopathic dermatology applicants has nearly tripled since 2007, rising from 5.7 to 14.7. Research items are self-reported by applicants and serve as an approximation of research output. Because the NRMP research items field is unverified and reported as an aggregate of several different research pursuits, it may not be an accurate representation of applicant research output. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the rise in NRMP-reported data is associated with a rise in verifiable, indexed publications from matched allopathic dermatology applicants from 2007 to 2018. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study including a bibliometric analysis on accepted applicant research output among 2234 matched allopathic dermatology applicants, with a total of 6229 publications, in dermatology residency programs for the years 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2016, and 2018. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the mean number of peer-reviewed indexed publications and mean number of NRMP ChOM research items. Secondary outcomes assessed the quality of indexed publications by analyzing article type and journal of publication. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, the mean number of indexed publications per matched dermatology applicant increased from 1.6 to 4.7 (203% increase). Indexed publications consistently compose a minority of NRMP ChOM research items (28.8% across the 6 years of the study). Nonindexed research items increased at more than double the rate of indexed publications. Bibliometric analysis showed that all other types of publications are increasing at a rate of 6 to 9 times that of basic science publications, dermatology-related publications increased at 5 times the rate of non-dermatology publications, and publications in lower-impact factor dermatology journals increased at 4 times the rate of publications in higher-impact factor dermatology journals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study provides data on the research output of matched dermatology applicants. Indexed publications compose a minority of NRMP research items. Medical student self-reports of research output may emphasize research quantity over quality.