Prevalence and Causes of Attrition Among Surgical Residents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Attrition of residents from general surgery training programs is relatively high; however, there are wide discrepancies in the prevalence and causes of attrition reported among surgical residents in previous studies. Objective: To summarize the estimate of attrition prevalence among general surgery residents. Data Sources: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (January 1, 1946, to October 22, 2015) for studies reporting on the prevalence and causes of attrition in surgical residents, as well as the characteristics and destinations of residents who left general surgery training programs. Database searches were conducted on October 22, 2015. Study Selection: Eligibility criteria included all studies reporting on the primary (attrition prevalence) or secondary (causes of attrition and characteristics and destination of residents who leave residency programs) outcomes in peer-reviewed journals. Commentaries, reviews, and studies reporting on preliminary surgery programs were excluded. Of the 41 full-text articles collected from the title/abstract screening, 22 studies (53.7%) met the selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently collected and summarized the data. We calculated pooled estimates using random effects meta-analyses where appropriate. Main Outcome and Measure: Attrition prevalence of general surgery residents. Results: Overall, we included 22 studies that reported on residents (n = 19 821) from general surgery programs. The pooled estimate for the overall attrition prevalence among general surgery residents was 18% (95% CI, 14%-21%), with significant between-study variation (I2 = 96.8%; P < .001). Attrition was significantly higher among female compared with male (25% vs 15%, respectively; P = .008) general surgery residents, and most residents left after their first postgraduate year (48%; 95% CI, 39%-57%). Departing residents often relocated to another general surgery program (20%; 95% CI, 15%-24%) or switched to anesthesia (13%; 95% CI, 11%-16%) and other specialties. The most common reported causes of attrition were uncontrollable lifestyle (range, 12%-87.5%) and transferring to another specialty (range, 19%-38.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: General surgery programs have relatively high attrition, with female residents more likely to leave their training programs than male residents. Residents most often relocate or switch to another specialty after the first postgraduate year owing to lifestyle-related issues.

Impact of Clinical Trial Results on the Temporal Trends of Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting From 2002 to 2014.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomized trials provide conflicting data for the efficacy of carotid-artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of conflicting clinical trial publications on the utilization rates of carotid revascularization procedures. METHODS: We conducted a population-level time-series analysis of all individuals who underwent carotid endarterectomy and stenting in Ontario, Canada (2002-2014). The primary analysis examined temporal changes in the rates of carotid revascularization procedures after publications of major randomized trials. Secondary analyses examined changes in overall and age, sex, carotid-artery symptom, and operator specialty-specific procedure rates. RESULTS: A total of 16 772 patients were studied (14 394 endarterectomy [86%]; 2378 stenting [14%]). The overall rate of carotid revascularization decreased from 6.0 procedures per 100 000 individuals ≥40 years old in April 2002 to 4.3 procedures in the first quarter of 2014 (29% decrease; P<0.001). The rate of endarterectomy decreased by 36% (P<0.001), whereas the rate of carotid-artery stenting increased by 72% (P=0.006). We observed a marked increase (P=0.01) in stenting after publication of the SAPPHIRE trial (Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy) in 2004, whereas stenting remained relatively unchanged after subsequent randomized trials published in 2006 (P=0.11) and 2010 (P=0.34). In contrast, endarterectomy decreased after trials published in 2006 (P=0.04) and 2010 (P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall rates of carotid revascularization and endarterectomy have fallen since 2002, the rate of carotid-artery stenting has risen since the publication of stenting-favorable SAPPHIRE trial. Subsequent conflicting randomized trials were associated with a decreasing rate of carotid endarterectomy.

Influence of Specialty Training and Trainee Involvement on Perioperative Outcomes of Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals' and surgeons' volume-outcome relationship have been reported in several esophagectomy studies with an inverse association of mortality and volume. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the outcomes of esophagectomy in the United States relative to the surgeon's specialty. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2006 to 2013). All patients (18 years of age and older) who underwent esophagectomy were divided into 2 groups according to whether the operation was performed by a general surgeon (GS) or a cardiothoracic surgeon (CTS). A comparison of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between the groups was conducted. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included overall and serious morbidity, discharge destination, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of the 5,142 esophagectomies identified, 70.3% were performed by GS and 29.7% by CTS. Overall, CTS patients had significantly higher comorbidities and cancer rates (61% versus 53%). Both specialties preferred the transthoracic approach (59.41% for CTS versus 44.90% for GS). Trainee involvement was higher for CTS. There was no significant difference in mortality or overall morbidity. Patients operated on by GS had higher rates of wound infection, sepsis, shock, prolonged or unplanned intubation, and a longer hospital stay, whereas patients operated on by CTS had higher chance for bleeding and return to the operating room. Trainees' involvement in esophagectomy was not associated with worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that a large number of esophagectomies in the United States are performed by GS, with the transthoracic approach being the most popular among both specialties. Trainees' involvement in esophagectomy did not significantly affect patients' outcomes. However CTS specialty was associated with lower incidence of infection and a shorter hospital stay.