Realistic Assessment of Research Publications by Neurosurgery Residency Applicants.

OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgical residency applicants' prior research experience can amplify their ability to stand out to prospective neurosurgery programs. We attempted to accurately quantify the number of research publications coauthored by applicants by analyzing the publications of applicants who matched into neurosurgery in the 2021 Match. METHODS: Scopus, a peer-reviewed literature database, was queried for publications by applicants who matched into neurosurgery in the 2021 Match before the finalization of rank lists. Conference papers, abstracts, and book chapters were excluded to determine an accurate average of actual publications. Descriptive statistics for resident publication data were used, with a Mann-Whitney U test used to compare research productivity between male and female residents. RESULTS: There were 234 positions filled by the 2021 Match, and 233 neurosurgical residents were identifiable in this study. A total of 187 residents matching from U.S. Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine programs were identified with 946 total publications-an average of 5.1 publications per resident. Analysis of descriptive statistics revealed type of research conducted, authorship information, most published journals, and citation data. Significant differences were found in the number of publications between male and female applicants with averages of 5.6 and 3.8 publications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Students matriculating to neurosurgery residency programs display a wide range of research productivity. Typical U.S. Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine applicants have coauthored a mean of 5.1 and a median of 4.0 publications. This information may assist program directors in weighing applicants' research background and give medical students interested in the field reasonable research expectations.

Assessment of Spine Patient Preferences for the Location of Surgery Between a Hospital and an Ambulatory Surgical Center in the Time of COVID-19: An Analysis of Patient Surveys.

Introduction There has been a recent increase in the number of spinal procedures that can be performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). Studies have found that patients who undergo procedures at ASCs tend to have lower complication rates following procedures, including lower infection rates. Furthermore, ASCs offer significantly lower costs of procedures to patients and health insurance companies as compared to the costs of procedures performed in a hospital. Despite precautions and screening in place by ASCs, patients may be hesitant to undergo procedures outside of the hospital. Conversely, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created hesitancy for many to go to the hospital for care due to the presence of COVID patients.  Objective To assess patient preferences in the location of elective spine procedures between ASCs and hospitals, the authors conducted a survey of spine surgery candidates in a single practice. Methods A survey measuring patient age, vaccination status, fear of contracting COVID-19, and preference of surgery location was given to spinal surgery candidates at a single practice between fall 2021 and winter 2022. Statistical differences between the means of response groups were measured by a two-sample Z-score test. Results A total of 58 surveys were completed by patients. No difference in preference was observed by age. A difference was observed between genders, with 66% of females preferring ASCs to 40% of males (α=0.03). Patients with a fear of contracting COVID-19 preferred to have their procedure performed in an ASC. No difference was observed in location due to vaccination status, but unvaccinated patients had a significantly lower fear of contracting COVID-19 (α=0.02). Conclusion The differences in patient preferences have no clear cause, highlighting the need for better patient education in regard to the risks and benefits of each location of surgery. The fear of contracting COVID-19 on the day of surgery appears to be more ideological than rational for unvaccinated patients, who had less fear of contracting COVID-19 than vaccinated patients, despite being more likely to contract COVID-19 than vaccinated patients.