Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Background Nationwide restrictions and recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges mandated program directors to conduct all graduate medical education interviews virtually in the Spring of 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was conducted to assess the impact of virtual interviews on a candidates’ ability to effectively create a rank list. Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate Obstetrics and Gynecology (ObGyn) subspecialty fellowship applicants’ perspectives regarding the effectiveness of virtual interviews for creating a rank list. Secondary outcomes included perceived advantages and disadvantages of the process and costs of the process. Methods This was a cross-sectional IRB-exempt study, using an electronic survey administered to a convenience sample of applicants to ObGyn subspecialty fellowship programs. The survey was administered via RedCap between the rank list submission deadline and the Match. Descriptive statistics were used. Results Response rate was 158/330 (48%). Overall, 129/158 (82%) percent of respondents felt confident in making their rank list based on the virtual interviews, and 146/158 (92%) were “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the process. Of those who expressed an interview style preference, 65/149(44%) of respondents preferred virtual interviews; 49/149(33%) had no preference or were not sure. Nearly all 146/148(99%) applicants cited cost-savings as a distinct advantage of virtual interviews. Conclusion Applicants to ObGyn subspecialty fellowships felt comfortable to create a rank list based on the virtual interview. This study indicates that the virtual format is effective, less stressful and less costly for ObGyn subspecialty interviews and should be considered beyond the pandemic to remove barriers and burdens for applicants.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to compare national surgical practice patterns of performing apical suspension procedures (ASPs) at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) before and after the publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Practice Bulletin on POP.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for hysterectomy cases performed for POP indications for the years 2015–2016 and 2018–2019. The primary outcome was the use of ASP at the time of hysterectomy for POP. Secondary outcomes included the use of anterior, posterior, and paravaginal prolapse repair procedures. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with performing a hysterectomy without an ASP.ResultsA total of 11,336 cases were included, and apical prolapse was the primary POP diagnosis in 86.3% of these cases. There was no statistically significant change in the utilization of ASPs in 2018–2019 compared with 2015–2016 (51.4% vs 49.8%, P = 0.081). Urogynecologists were significantly more likely than general gynecologists to perform ASPs (65.6% vs 37.5%, P < 0.001), which was confirmed on multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 3.257; P < 0.001). The use of concomitant anterior repairs (44.1% vs 39.5%, P < 0.001) and posterior repairs (47.5% vs 41.3%, P < 0.001) increased in the 2018–2019 cohort.ConclusionsThere was no overall increase in the utilization of concomitant ASPs at the time of hysterectomy done for POP indications despite the 2017 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin. Urogynecologists were more likely to perform ASPs than general gynecologists.