Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Report the 2-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. To our knowledge, no studies have been published to date comparing long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03490266). Clinical outcomes included surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, hernia occurrence, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 175 consecutive patients were approached that were deemed eligible for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. In all, 124 were randomized and 101 completed follow-up at 2 years. Two-year follow-up was completed in 54 patients (83%) in the robotic arm and 47 patients (80%) in the laparoscopic arm. No differences were seen in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence. Hernia recurrence occurred in 2 patients (4%) receiving robotic repair versus in 6 patients (13%) receiving laparoscopic repair (relative risk: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.06-1.39; P =0.12). No patients (0%) required reoperation in the robotic arm whereas 5 patients (11%) underwent reoperation in the laparoscopic arm ( P =0.019, relative risk not calculatable due to null outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated at least similar if not improved outcomes at 2 years compared with laparoscopy. There is potential benefit with robotic repair; however, additional multi-center trials and longer follow-up are needed to validate the hypothesis-generating findings of this study.

A novel interaction between extracellular vimentin and fibrinogen in fibrin formation.

INTRODUCTION: Thrombosis is frequently manifested in critically ill patients with systemic inflammation, including sepsis and COVID-19. The coagulopathy in systemic inflammation is often associated with increased levels of fibrinogen and D-dimer. Because elevated levels of vimentin have been detected in sepsis, we sought to investigate the relationship between vimentin and the increased fibrin formation potential observed in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This hypothesis was examined by using recombinant human vimentin, anti-vimentin antibodies, plasma derived from healthy and critically ill patients, confocal microscopy, co-immunoprecipitation assays, and size exclusion chromatography. RESULTS: The level of vimentin in plasma derived from critically ill subjects with systemic inflammation was on average two-fold higher than that of healthy volunteers. We determined that vimentin directly interacts with fibrinogen and enhances fibrin formation. Anti-vimentin antibody effectively blocked fibrin formation ex vivo and caused changes in the fibrin structure in plasma. Additionally, confocal imaging demonstrated plasma vimentin enmeshed in the fibrin fibrils. Size exclusion chromatography column and co-immunoprecipitation assays demonstrated a direct interaction between extracellular vimentin and fibrinogen in plasma from critically ill patients but not in healthy plasma. CONCLUSIONS: The results describe that extracellular vimentin engages fibrinogen in fibrin formation. In addition, the data suggest that elevated levels of an apparent aberrant extracellular vimentin potentiate fibrin clot formation in critically ill patients with systemic inflammation; consistent with the notion that plasma vimentin contributes to the pathogenesis of thrombosis.

Expert Consensus for Key Features of Operative Reports of Ventral Hernia.

BACKGROUND: Operative reports are important documents; however, standards for critical elements of operative reports are general and often vague. Hernia surgery is one of the most common procedures performed by general surgeons, so the aim of this project was to develop a Delphi consensus on critical elements of a ventral hernia repair operative report. STUDY DESIGN: The Delphi method was used to establish consensus on key features of operative reports for ventral hernia repair. An expert panel was selected and questionnaires were distributed. The first round of voting was open-ended to allow participants to recommend what details should be included. For the second round the questionnaire was distributed with the items that did not have unanimous responses along with free text comments from the first round. RESULTS: Eighteen surgeons were approached, of which 11 completed both rounds. Twenty items were on the initial questionnaire, of which 11 had 100% agreement. Of the remaining 9 items, after the second questionnaire an additional 7 reached consensus. CONCLUSION: Ventral hernia repairs are a common and challenging problem and often require reoperations. Surgeons frequently refer to previous operative notes to guide future procedures, which requires detailed and comprehensive operative reports. This Delphi consensus was able to identify key components needed for an operative report describing ventral hernia repair.

Aberrant Fibrin Clot Structure Visualized Ex Vivo in Critically Ill Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

OBJECTIVES: Disseminated fibrin-rich microthrombi have been reported in patients who died from COVID-19. Our objective is to determine whether the fibrin clot structure and function differ between critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 and to correlate the structure with clinical coagulation biomarkers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study. Platelet poor plasma was used to analyze fibrin clot structure; the functional implications were determined by quantifying clot turbidity and porosity. SETTING: ICU at an academic medical center and an academic laboratory. PATIENTS: Patients admitted from July 1 to August 1, 2020, to the ICU with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood was collected from 36 patients including 26 ICU patients with COVID-19 and 10 ICU patients with sepsis but without COVID-19 at a median of 11 days after ICU admission (interquartile range, 3-16). The cohorts were similar in age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and mortality. More patients with COVID-19 (100% vs 70%; p = 0.003) required anticoagulation. Ex vivo fibrin clots formed from patients with COVID-19 appeared to be denser and to have smaller pores than those from patients with sepsis but without COVID-19 (percent area of fluorescent fibrin 48.1% [SD, 16%] vs 24.9% [SD, 18.8%]; p = 0.049). The turbidity and flow-through assays corroborated these data; fibrin clots had a higher maximum turbidity in patients with COVID-19 compared with patients without COVID-19 (0.168 vs 0.089 OD units; p = 0.003), and it took longer for buffer to flow through these clots (216 vs 103 min; p = 0.003). In patients with COVID-19, d-dimer levels were positively correlated with percent area of fluorescent fibrin (ρ = 0.714, p = 0.047). Denser clots (assessed by turbidity and thromboelastography) and higher SOFA scores were independently associated with delayed clot lysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found aberrant fibrin clot structure and function in critically ill patients with COVID-19. These findings may contribute to the poor outcomes observed in COVID-19 patients with widespread fibrin deposition.

Different Surgeon, Different Duration: Lack of Consensus on the Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Therapy in Surgical Practice.

Background: The principles of antimicrobial stewardship promote the appropriate prescribing of agents with respect to efficacy, safety, duration, and cost. Antibiotic resistance often results from inappropriate use (e.g., indication, selection, duration). We evaluated practice variability in duration of antimicrobials in surgical infection treatment (Rx) or prophylaxis (Px). Hypothesis: There is lack of consensus regarding the duration of antibiotic Px and Rx for many common indications. Methods: A survey was distributed to the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) regarding the use of antimicrobial agents for a variety of scenarios. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare survey responses. Heterogeneity among question responses were compared using the Shannon Index, expressed as natural units (nats). Results: Sixty-three SIS members responded, most of whom (67%) have held a leadership position within the SIS or contributed as an annual meeting moderator or discussant; 76% have been in practice for more than five years. Regarding peri-operative Px, more than 80% agreed that a single dose is adequate for most indications, with the exceptions of gangrenous cholecystitis (40% single dose, 38% pre-operative +24 hours) and inguinal hernia repair requiring a bowel resection (70% single dose). There was more variability regarding the use of antibiotic Px for various bedside procedures with respondents split between none needed (range, 27%-66%) versus a single dose (range, 31%-67%). Opinions regarding the duration of antimicrobial Rx for hospitalized patients who have undergone a source control operation or procedure varied widely based on indication. Only two of 20 indications achieved more than 60% consensus despite available class 1 evidence: seven days for ventilator-associated pneumonia (77%), and four plus one days for perforated appendicitis (62%). Conclusions: Except for peri-operative antibiotic Px, there is little consensus regarding antibiotic duration among surgical infection experts, despite class 1 evidence and several available guidelines. This highlights the need for further high-level research and better dissemination of guidelines.

Surgical Infections and the Future of Research: Re-Defining the Research Agenda for the Surgical Infection Society.

Background: Infections represent a major component of surgical practice. Risk mitigation, seeking eradication and optimal patient outcomes, require a concerted, multifocal effort to understand disease and microbiology, prevent infections, and treat them. The present study was undertaken to re-define the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) research agenda for the next decade. Hypothesis: We utilized the expertise of the SIS membership to identify research questions regarding surgical infections, hypothesizing that consensus among participants could be used to re-define the future research agenda. Methods: Members of the SIS were surveyed using a modified Delphi. The three rounds of the survey were targeted at: question generation; question ranking; and reaching consensus. Each of the 15 questions to emerge was evaluated according to level of consensus, feasibility, and data availability. Results: One hundred twenty-four participants contributed. Initially, 226 questions were generated that were condensed to 35 unique questions for consideration in the subsequent two rounds. The 35 questions encompassed several research themes, with antibiotic prophylaxis (n = 8), prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs; n = 6), and improved diagnostics (n = 5) being most common. Standard deviation of importance scores was inversely proportional to the question rank, indicating greater consensus among higher ranking questions. All 15 questions had a feasibility score of greater than three (five-point Likert scale), and the majority (12/15) had a mean data availability score of less than three. In the final round of the survey, the top three topics for further research surrounded non-antimicrobial treatments, optimal treatment duration for bacteremia, and treatment duration for necrotizing soft tissue infections. Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi process, 15 research questions addressing surgical infections were identified. Such questions can assist the SIS and the SIS Foundation for Research and Education in prioritizing and enabling research efforts, and development of a strategic research plan for the next decade.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown. PURPOSE: To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: One-year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) at 1-year postoperative. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a relative lack of research at low risk for bias assessing robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), the growth of RVHR has been rapid. We previously reported short-term results of the first randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR; there was no clear difference in clinical outcomes but increased operative time and cost with robotic repair. METHODS: Patients from a multicenter, blinded randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR were followed at 1 year. Outcomes included wound complication (surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, wound dehiscence), hernia occurrence including recurrence and port site hernia, readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (functional status, pain, and satisfaction with repair and cosmesis). RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were randomized and 113 patients (91%; 60 robot, 53 laparoscopic) completed 1-year follow-up. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. No differences were seen in wound complication (15% vs 15%; P = 0.899), hernia recurrence (7% vs 9%; P = 0.576), or readmission (2% vs 6%; P = 0.251). No patients underwent reoperation in the robotic arm, whereas 5 (9%) did in the laparoscopic arm (P = 0.020). No differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes. Both arms reported clinically significant improvements in functional status, low pain scores, and high satisfaction scores at 1-year post repair. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Gender Disparity Among American Medicine and Surgery Physicians: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Disparity exists between men and women physicians. We aimed to examine changes in gender disparity in the medical profession over the last two decades. The study reviewed publications on gender differences and the measures which have been implemented or suggested to rectify these disparities. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched in December 2019 using ("gender disparity" OR "gender gap" OR "pay gap" OR "gender discrimination") from 1998-2019. The sources list of reviewed articles was also used to retrieve more relevant articles. Articles about physicians in the United States were included, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. RESULTS: In this systematic review that includes 49 studies, there is still disparity and discrimination in research, leadership, and pay between male and female physicians. Women have less leadership roles and progress at a slower rate to associate and full professor. Women publish less articles and have a lower h-index than men. Men earn $20,000 more a year after salary adjustment. More women than men experience negative comments about their gender (36% vs 4%), experience gender discrimination (65% vs 10%) and sexual harassment (30% vs 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although substantial research exists on this topic, there remains significant room for improvement to achieve gender equality. Institutions and individuals should implement interventions to rectify this disparity .

Postoperative Work and Activity Restrictions After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess what is known about convalescence following abdominal surgery. Through a review of the basic science and clinical literature, we explored the effect of physical activity on the healing fascia and the optimal timing for postoperative activity. BACKGROUND: Abdominal surgery confers a 30% risk of incisional hernia development. To mitigate this, surgeons often impose postoperative activity restrictions. However, it is unclear whether this is effective or potentially harmful in preventing hernias. METHODS: We conducted 2 separate systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The first assessed available basic science literature on fascial healing. The second assessed available clinical literature on activity after abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Seven articles met inclusion criteria for the basic science review and 22 for the clinical studies review. The basic science data demonstrated variability in maximal tensile strength and time for fascial healing, in part due to differences in layer of abdominal wall measured. Some animal studies indicated a positive effect of physical activity on the healing wound. Most clinical studies were qualitative, with only 3 randomized controlled trials on this topic. Variability was reported on clinician recommendations, time to return to activity, and factors that influence return to activity. Interventions designed to shorten convalescence demonstrated improvements only in patient-reported symptoms. None reported an association between activity and complications, such as incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified gaps in our understanding of what is best for patients recovering from abdominal surgery. Randomized controlled trials are crucial in safely optimizing the recovery period.

Surgical Infection Society Research Priorities: A Narrative Review of Fourteen Years of Progress.

Background: In 2006, the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) utilized a modified Delphi approach to define 15 specific priority research questions that remained unanswered in the field of surgical infections. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the scientific progress achieved during the ensuing period in answering each of the 15 research questions and to determine if additional research in these fields is warranted. Methods: For each of the questions, a literature search using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) was performed by the Scientific Studies Committee of the SIS to identify studies that attempted to address each of the defined questions. This literature was analyzed and summarized. The data on each question were evaluated by a surgical infections expert to determine if the question was answered definitively or remains unanswered. Results: All 15 priority research questions were studied in the last 14 years; six questions (40%) were definitively answered and 9 questions (60%) remain unanswered in whole or in part, mainly because of the low quality of the studies available on this topic. Several of the 9 unanswered questions were deemed to remain research priorities in 2020 and warrant further investigation. These included, for example, the role of empiric antimicrobial agents in nosocomial infections, the use of inotropes/vasopressors versus volume loading to raise the mean arterial pressure, and the role of increased antimicrobial dosing and frequency in the obese patient. Conclusions: Several surgical infection-related research questions prioritized in 2006 remain unanswered. Further high-quality research is required to provide a definitive answer to many of these priority knowledge gaps. An updated research agenda by the SIS is warranted at this time to define research priorities for the future.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair. DESIGN: Pragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Multidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat. RESULTS: Patients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair. CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

Current surgeon practices for postoperative activity restrictions after abdominal surgery vary widely: A survey from the communities on the ACS website.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons often impose restrictions on patient activities after an abdominal operation in an effort to prevent complications such as incisional hernia. This study addresses the current recommendations concerning the restriction of activities given by a diverse group of surgeons to their patients after abdominal surgery. METHODS: A 14-item survey was posted on surgeon-specific social media platforms, primarily the American College of Surgeons Communities. This survey included questions about demographics, practice type, and activity recommendations after open and minimally invasive abdominal surgery. Descriptive, multivariable, and qualitative analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 420 surgeons completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified as general surgeons (76.2%). Practice types included private (37.6%), academic (34.3%), underserved (10.1%), and Veterans Affairs (5.6%). After an open laparotomy, the majority of respondents (53.1%) recommended that patients refrain from heavy lifting or strenuous activity for 6 weeks. For a minimally invasive abdominal operation, recommendations were even more variable, restricting activity for 2 weeks (34.4%), 4 weeks (23.8%), 6 weeks (15.5%), or no restrictions (12.6%). On average, participating surgeons recommended an earlier return to activity by 2.3 weeks for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery compared with an open operation (95% confidence interval 2.1-2.5, P < .001). Qualitative analysis provided additional information regarding surgeons' rationale for decision making. Only 23.8% of the respondents indicated that their recommendations were based on evidence in literature. CONCLUSION: This survey on surgeon recommendations for convalescence after an abdominal operation indicates the wide variation in practices with insufficient evidence to guide decision making. Future clinical trials examining various durations and intensities of postoperative restrictions will be important to determine a safe and patient-centered approach for recovery after an abdominal operation.

Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer-Reviewed Medical Publications.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in medicine despite increases in the percentage of female physicians. It is unknown if academic productivity contributes to these differences. We sought to determine whether gender disparity exists in peer-reviewed literature authorship in the United States from 2000 to 2017. METHODS: Medical and surgical peer-reviewed research articles from the United States were retrospectively reviewed using PubMed from 2000 to 2017. Manuscripts were randomly selected within 4 different time periods: 2000-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2017. The gender of the first and last authors was determined and the journal's impact factor recorded. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) databases were used to determine the percent of female residents, attendings and academic leadership positions. Primary outcome was the prevalence of female authors in peer-reviewed literature. Secondary aims were differences in disparity in medical versus surgical specialties, differences in publications' impact factor among gender and the association between gender and mentoring. RESULTS: Within 1,120 articles reviewed, 31.6% of first authors and 19.4% of last authors were women. Female first and last authors increased over time and authorship was proportional to the number of women in the studied specialties at that specific time period (P = 0.78). There was no difference in the journal's impact factors between gender (P = 0.64). On subgroup analysis of medical and surgical subspecialties, results remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Women publish research at a rate proportional to the number of academic female physicians. Disparities in leadership roles are unlikely explained by differences in publications. While gender disparities in medicine have improved, substantial disparities in leadership persist.

Perceptions on gender disparity in surgery and surgical leadership: A multicenter mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to identify perceptions of the environment for women in surgery among 4 academic institutions. METHODS: Faculty surgeons and senior surgery residents were randomly selected to participate in a parallel study with concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection. Outcomes were perceptions of the environment for women in surgery. Measures included semi-structured interviews, survey responses, and responses to scenarios. RESULTS: Saturation was achieved after 36 individuals were interviewed: 14 female (8 faculty, 6 residents) and 22 male (18 faculty, 4 residents) surgeons. Men (100%) and women (86%) reported gender disparity in surgery and identified 6 major categories which influence disparity: definitions of gender disparity, gaps in mentoring, family responsibility, disparity in leave, unequal pay, and professional advancement. Overall 94% of participants expressed concerns with gaps in mentoring, but 64% of women versus 14% of men reported difficulties finding role models who faced similar obstacles. Over half (53%) reported time with loved ones as their biggest sacrifice to advance professionally. Both female and male respondents expressed system-based biases favoring individuals willing to sacrifice family. A global subconscious bias against the expectations, abilities, and goals of female surgeons were perceived to impede promotion and advancement. CONCLUSION: Both female and male surgeons report substantial gender-based barriers in surgery for women. Despite improvements, fundamental issues such as lack of senior role models, limited support for surgeons with families, and disparities in hiring and promotion persist. This is an opportunity to make substantive changes to the system and eliminate barriers for women joining surgery, advancing their careers, and achieving their goals in a timely fashion.

Gender Disparity Among Surgical Peer-Reviewed Literature.

BACKGROUND: Women remain under-represented in academic surgery despite increasing percentages of female surgeons and surgery residents. Publications and leadership positions are used for hiring and promoting academic surgeons. We sought to determine the disparity of female authorship when compared with male authors in surgical peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: PubMed was searched for surgical publications from the United States. Obstetrics and gynecology was selected as a control specialty owing to its history of high female representation. Thirteen other surgical specialties were randomly selected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specialty list. Manuscripts from four time periods, 2000-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2017, were randomly selected, and the gender of the first and last authors was determined. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Association of American Medical Colleges databases were used to determine women representation in surgery. Trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: In total, 560 manuscripts in 14 specialties were reviewed. In the control specialty, 51% of first authors were female compared with 18% of those in study specialties, and 39% of last authors were female compared with 11% of those in study specialties. No difference was found when comparing the gender of first (P-value = 0.393) and/or last authors (P-value = 0.281) with the proportion of female residents and attendings. CONCLUSIONS: Women surgeons publish research at a rate proportional to the number of females involved in that specialty. Disparities in leadership roles are unlikely explained by differences in publications. Instead, disparities are likely due to other reasons such as failure to attract women to academic surgery and failure to promote and mentor women surgeons into leadership positions.

Gender Disparity in Surgery: An Evaluation of Surgical Societies.

Background: The percentage of female surgeons and surgery residents has increased slowly to 24% and 35%, respectively. However, women remain under-represented in surgical leadership positions (<20%). Society awards and leadership positions are used for hiring and promoting surgeons. We hypothesized that within the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), females are under-represented. Methods: The SIS website and databases were consulted for the number of female members, awardees, and leaders. Representation was divided into four time periods: 2000-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2017 and compared for changes over time utilizing a Χ2 test. In addition, we reviewed the council members of five other surgical societies and compared the percentage of female representation in leadership positions. Results: Since the SIS was founded, there have been 587 members of whom only 135 (23%) are female. There has been an increase in female membership over time (p < 0.001). The number of female awardees rose from 37% during the first two study periods to more than 50% in the last two periods (p = 0.002). However, female representation in leadership positions decreased from 26% in 2000-2005 to less than 15% in the last three study periods (p = 0.234). Similar disparities emerged when comparing the SIS with other surgical societies: Women have represented only 24% (range 8%-42%) of leaders and 4% (range 0-11%) of society presidents. Conclusions: Female surgeons are under-represented in the SIS membership and leadership positions. Whereas the number of female surgeons and residents has increased, these trends have not occurred with council membership and leadership within the SIS. There is a need to address this gender disparity.