Career Goals, Salary Expectations, and Salary Negotiation Among Male and Female General Surgery Residents.

Importance: In general surgery, women earn less money and hold fewer leadership positions compared with their male counterparts. Objective: To assess whether differences exist between the perspectives of male and female general surgery residents on future career goals, salary expectations, and salary negotiation that may contribute to disparity later in their careers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was based on an anonymous and voluntary survey sent to 19 US general surgery programs. A total of 606 categorical residents at general surgery programs across the United States received the survey. Data were collected from August through September 2017 and analyzed from September through December 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparison of responses between men and women to detect any differences in career goals, salary expectation, and perspectives toward salary negotiation at a resident level. Results: A total of 427 residents (70.3%) responded, and 407 responses (230 male [58.5%]; mean age, 30.0 years [95% CI, 29.8-30.4 years]) were complete. When asked about salary expectation, female residents had lower expectations compared with men in minimum starting salary ($249 502 [95% CI, $236 815-$262 190] vs $267 700 [95% CI, $258 964-$276 437]; P = .003) and in ideal starting salary ($334 709 [95% CI, $318 431-$350 987] vs $364 663 [95% CI, $351 612-$377 715]; P < .001). Women also had less favorable opinions about salary negotiation. They were less likely to believe they had the tools to negotiate (33 of 177 [18.6%] vs 73 of 230 [31.7%]; P = .03) and were less likely to pursue other job offers as an aid in negotiating a higher salary (124 of 177 [70.1%] vs 190 of 230 [82.6%]; P = .01). Female residents were also less likely to be married (61 of 177 [34.5%] vs 116 of 230 [50.4%]; P = .001), were less likely to have children (25 of 177 [14.1%] vs 57 of 230 [24.8%]; P = .008), and believed they would have more responsibility at home than their significant other (77 of 177 [43.5%] vs 35 of 230 [15.2%]; P < .001). Men and women anticipated working the same number of hours, expected to retire at the same age, and had similar interest in holding leadership positions, having academic careers, and pursuing research. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no difference in overall career goals between male and female residents; however, female residents' salary expectations were lower, and they viewed salary negotiation less favorably. Given the current gender disparities in salary and leadership within surgery, strategies are needed to help remedy this inequity.

Initial repair of iatrogenic colon perforation using laparoscopic methods.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic perforation of the colon during elective colonoscopy is a rare but serious complication. Treatment using laparoscopic methods is a novel approach, only described in the recent literature. We hypothesized that laparoscopic treatment of iatrogenic colon perforation would result in equal therapeutic efficacy, less perioperative morbidity, smaller incisions and decreased length of stay, and an overall better short-term outcome compared to open methods. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively collected patient database from July 2001 to July 2005 and compared the intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair versus those who had open primary repairs of iatrogenically perforated large bowel. RESULTS: The laparoscopic (mean age 70 years; range 20-91 years; 18 percent male) and open (mean age 68 years; range 36-87 years; 43 percent male) groups were similar with regard to age. Overall, patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 11) versus open (n = 7) repair had comparable operative (OR) times (mean 104 minutes, range 60-150 minutes versus mean 98 minutes, range 40-130 minutes, p = 0.04), shorter length of stay [LOS, (5.1 +/- 1.7 days versus 9.2 +/- 3.1 days, p = 0.01)], fewer complications (two versus five, p = 0.02) and shorter incision length (16 +/- 14.7 mm versus 163 +/- 54.4 mm, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic approach to iatrogenic colon perforation results in decreased morbidity, decreased length of stay, and a shorter incision length compared to an open method. In those cases where it is feasible and the surgical skills exist, a laparoscopic attempt at colon repair should probably be the initial clinical approach.