Objective To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in a large New York City medical center and describe their clinical course across the emergency department, hospital wards, and intensive care units. Design Retrospective manual medical record review. Setting NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, a quaternary care academic medical center in New York City. Participants The first 1000 consecutive patients with a positive result on the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) who presented to the emergency department or were admitted to hospital between 1 March and 5 April 2020. Patient data were manually abstracted from electronic medical records. Main outcome measures Characterization of patients, including demographics, presenting symptoms, comorbidities on presentation, hospital course, time to intubation, complications, mortality, and disposition. Results Of the first 1000 patients, 150 presented to the emergency department, 614 were admitted to hospital (not intensive care units), and 236 were admitted or transferred to intensive care units. The most common presenting symptoms were cough (732/1000), fever (728/1000), and dyspnea (631/1000). Patients in hospital, particularly those treated in intensive care units, often had baseline comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. Patients admitted to intensive care units were older, predominantly male (158/236, 66.9%), and had long lengths of stay (median 23 days, interquartile range 12-32 days); 78.0% (184/236) developed acute kidney injury and 35.2% (83/236) needed dialysis. Only 4.4% (6/136) of patients who required mechanical ventilation were first intubated more than 14 days after symptom onset. Time to intubation from symptom onset had a bimodal distribution, with modes at three to four days, and at nine days. As of 30 April, 90 patients remained in hospital and 211 had died in hospital. Conclusions Patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 at this medical center faced major morbidity and mortality, with high rates of acute kidney injury and inpatient dialysis, prolonged intubations, and a bimodal distribution of time to intubation from symptom onset.
Objective: To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a large New York City (NYC) medical center and describe their clinical course across the emergency department (ED), inpatient wards, and intensive care units (ICUs). Design: Retrospective manual medical record review. Setting: NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center (NYP/CUIMC), a quaternary care academic medical center in NYC. Participants: The first 1000 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Methods: We identified the first 1000 consecutive patients with a positive RT-SARS-CoV-2 PCR test who first presented to the ED or were hospitalized at NYP/CUIMC between March 1 and April 5, 2020. Patient data was manually abstracted from the electronic medical record. Main outcome measures: We describe patient characteristics including demographics, presenting symptoms, comorbidities on presentation, hospital course, time to intubation, complications, mortality, and disposition. Results: Among the first 1000 patients, 150 were ED patients, 614 were admitted without requiring ICU-level care, and 236 were admitted or transferred to the ICU. The most common presenting symptoms were cough (73.2%), fever (72.8%), and dyspnea (63.1%). Hospitalized patients, and ICU patients in particular, most commonly had baseline comorbidities including of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. ICU patients were older, predominantly male (66.9%), and long lengths of stay (median 23 days; IQR 12 to 32 days); 78.0% developed AKI and 35.2% required dialysis. Notably, for patients who required mechanical ventilation, only 4.4% were first intubated more than 14 days after symptom onset. Time to intubation from symptom onset had a bimodal distribution, with modes at 3-4 and 9 days. As of April 30, 90 patients remained hospitalized and 211 had died in the hospital. Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 illness at this medical center faced significant morbidity and mortality, with high rates of AKI, dialysis, and a bimodal distribution in time to intubation from symptom onset.
Objective In previous plastic surgery residency match cycles, in-person activities at other institutions, such as away rotations, have facilitated matches outside of an applicant's home program or region. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, limited these in-person opportunities. Therefore, we hypothesized that applicants of the 2021 cycle would be more likely to match into programs with which they have existing geographic connections when compared to previous years. Design Residency websites and social media accounts were searched for resident names and educational information for those matching in 2021 and 2015 to 2020. Outcomes included proportion of applicants matching at the program affiliated with their medical school (“home program”), or matching in the same state or United States Census Map region as their medical school or undergraduate institution. Subgroup analyses were stratified by program region, incoming resident class size, and Doximity residency reputation ranking. Setting Columbia University (New York). Participants For the 2015 to 2020 residency cycles, 963 residents were identified from 78 (95.1%) programs. For 2021, 159 incoming interns were identified from 70 (82.3%) programs. Results 2021 applicants matched into their home program at higher rates than 2015-2020 applicants (36.0% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.019). This trend was similar regardless of program region or size. This increase was significant for programs ranked outside of the top 30 (41.5% vs. 26.4%, p = 0.032), but not for the top 30 programs (32.1% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.128). Excluding those who matched at their home program, 2015 to 2020 and 2021 applicants matched in the same state or region of their medical school or undergraduate institution at similar rates (p > 0.05 for all). Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, plastic surgery residency programs matched more applicants from affiliated medical schools than in previous years. This may result from lack of in-person opportunities for applicants at other programs. Alternative relationship-building opportunities may facilitate broader geographic connections in the 2022 cycle.
Various recent developments, including legislation in 2014 banning healthcare discrimination against gender minorities, have contributed to expanding insurance coverage for genderaffirming care, which includes facial gender confirmation surgery (FGCS). Increasing evidence suggests FGCS improves quality-oflife outcomes, but literature evaluating FGCS patient demographics, surgical risk factors, procedures, and complications is limited. Therefore, the authors conducted a study of a national surgical database from 2005 to 2019 attempting to fill in these literature gaps. Statistics were used to assess temporal trends after 2014. A total of 203 FGCS cases were identified, with the earliest occurring in 2013. Case volume increased annually from 2015-2019. The average patient age was 34.0 years and racial demographics largely mirrored national estimates for the transgender/ non-binary population. Obesity (20.7%) and hypertension (3.9%) were the only patient co-morbidities, although a relatively high proportion were underweight (5.4%). The majority of cases were outpatient procedures (66.5%) conducted by either plastic surgery (38.9%) or otolaryngology (61.1%). Comparing FGCSs by anatomic site, the proportion of tracheal procedures decreased between 2015-17 and 2018-19 (25.6% vs. 10.7%, P ¼ 0.0002) whereas the proportion of brow/forehead reconstructions increased (32.6% versus 63.1%, P ¼ 0.0005). These changes coincided with an increase in mean operative time (168.6 minutes versus 260.0, P ¼ 0.0002). Complications were rare (3.9%), and the most common was surgical site infection (3.4%), a previously unreported outcome in the FGCS literature. Overall, FGCS patients are mostly young healthy individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and they have few surgical complications. The increasing volume and complexity of FGCSs may be a result of expanding insurance coverage for previously unaffordable procedures.
An increasing number of plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) units have transitioned from divisions to departments in recent years. This study aimed to identify quantifiable differences that may reflect challenges and benefits associated with each type of unit. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of publicly-available data on characteristics of academic medical institutions housing PRS units, faculty size of surgical units within these institutions, and academic environments of PRS units themselves. Univariate analysis compared PRS divisions versus departments. Matchedpaired testing compared PRS units versus other intra-institutional surgical departments. Compared to PRS divisions (n ¼ 64), departments (n ¼ 22) are at institutions with more surgical departments overall (P ¼ 0.0071), particularly departments that are traditionally divisions within the department of surgery (ie urology). Compared to PRS divisions, PRS departments have faculty size that more closely resembles other intra-institutional surgical departments, especially for full-time surgical faculty and faculty in areas of clinical overlap with other departments like hand surgery. Plastic and reconstructive surgery departments differ from PRS divisions by certain academic measures, including offering more clinical fellowships (P ¼ 0.005), running more basic science laboratories (P ¼ 0.033), supporting more nonclinical research faculty (P ¼ 0.0417), and training residents who produce more publications during residency (P ¼ 0.002). Institutions with PRS divisions may be less favorable environments for surgical divisions to become departments, but other recently-transitioned divisions could provide blueprints for PRS to follow suit. Bolstering full-time surgical faculty numbers and faculty in areas of clinical overlap could be useful for PRS divisions seeking departmental status. Transitioning to department may yield objective academic benefits for PRS units.
Background: Lack of female and ethnically underrepresented in medicine (UIM) surgeons remains concerning in academic plastic surgery. One barrier to inclusion may be unequal opportunity to publish research. This study evaluates the extent of this challenge for plastic surgery trainees and identifies potential solutions. Methods: Data were collected on academic plastic surgeons' research productivity during training. Bivariate analysis compared publication measures between genders and race/ethnicities at different training stages (pre-residency/residency/ clinical fellowship). Multivariate analysis determined training experiences independently associated with increased research productivity. Results: Overall, women had fewer total publications than men during training (8.89 versus 12.46, P = 0.0394). Total publications were similar between genders before and during residency (P > 0.05 for both) but lower for women during fellowship (1.32 versus 2.48, P = 0.0042). Women had a similar number of first-author publications during training (3.97 versus 5.24, P = 0.1030) but fewer middle-author publications (4.70 versus 6.81, P = 0.0405). UIM and non-UIM individuals had similar productivity at all training stages and authorship positions (P > 0.05 for all). Research fellowship completion was associated with increased total, first-, and middle-author training publications (P < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Less research productivity for female plastic surgery trainees may reflect a disparity in opportunity to publish. Fewer middle-author publications could indicate challenges with network-building in a predominately male field. Despite comparable research productivity during training relative to non-UIM individuals, UIM individuals remain underrepresented in academic plastic surgery. Creating research fellowships for targeting underrepresented groups could help overcome these challenges.
Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a clinical challenge for health care professionals. Historically, arthroscopic arthrolysis is a treatment modality that has been reserved for patients that have failed other conservative modalities, including manipulation under anesthesia. However, a systematic review of the literature evaluating the clinical efficacy and complications of arthroscopic arthrolysis for stiffness after TKA has not been performed. A systematic review of medical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) was undertaken for articles published from January 1980 to October 2018. A descriptive and critical analysis of the results was performed. From 1,326 studies, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 160 patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis for arthrofibrosis following TKA were included for analysis. The quality of the evidence for the included studies ranged between moderate and high. Overall, patients had significant increased range of motion and flexion by 32.5 and 26.7 degrees, respectively following arthroscopic arthrolysis. Functional outcome scores also significantly improved for patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis after TKA. Arthroscopic arthrolysis is an efficacious modality for treatment of stiffness following TKA. The greatest benefit is seen among patients that present with significant loss of flexion. Arthroscopic arthrolysis should be reserved for patients that have previously failed more conservative modalities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.