1.Social media impact in the Match: A survey of current trends in the United States
Thomas N. STEELE ; Laura GALARZA-PAEZ ; Gabriela AGUILO-SEARA ; Lisa R. DAVID
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2021;48(1):107-113
Background:
Applicants to integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency in the United States spend exorbitant amounts of time and money throughout the interview process. Outside of first-hand experience through a visiting rotation, applicants utilize various resources in learning about a program. Today’s applicants are “Millennials,” the demographic cohort raised during the information age and proficient with digital technology. The authors evaluated whether programs have a presence on social media, and whether applicants are following these accounts.
Methods:
An online survey was sent to applicants to a single integrated plastic surgery program evaluating basic demographics, social media utilization, and sources of information accessed throughout the residency application process. A manual search of popular social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter) was performed in October 2019. Accounts affiliated with integrated PRS programs were identified and analyzed.
Results:
Eighty-four of 222 applicants (37.8%) completed the survey. Ninety-six percent of applicants were within the Millennial demographic. Ninety-six percent of applicants had some form of social media presence, with Facebook (90%) and Instagram (87%) being the most popular platforms. Seventy-three percent of applicants reported following a PRS residency social media account. As of October 2019, 59 integrated residency programs (73%) have active Instagram accounts.
Conclusions
Applicants still rely on the program website when researching potential residencies, but social media is being rapidly adopted by programs. Program social media accounts should be used as a dynamic form of communication to better inform applicants of program strengths and weaknesses.
2.Risk of Incident Cancer in Veterans with Diabetes Who Use Metformin Versus Sulfonylureas
Maya M. ABDALLAH ; Beatriz Desanti de OLIVEIRA ; Clark DUMONTIER ; Ariela R. ORKABY ; Lisa NUSSBAUM ; Michael GAZIANO ; Luc DJOUSSE ; David GAGNON ; Kelly CHO ; Sarah R. PREIS ; Jane A. DRIVER
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):140-147
Prior research suggests metformin has anti-cancer effects, yet data are limited. We examined the association between diabetes treatment (metformin versus sulfonylurea) and risk of incident diabetes-related and non- diabetes-related cancers in US veterans.This retrospective cohort study included US veterans, without cancer, aged ≥ 55 years, who were new users of metformin or sulfo-nylureas for diabetes between 2001 to 2012. Cox proportional hazards models, with propensity score-matched inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were constructed. A total of 88,713 veterans (mean age 68.6 ± 7.8 years; 97.7% male; 84.1% White, 12.6% Black, 3.3% other race) were followed for 4.2 ± 3.0 years. Among metformin users (n = 60,476), there were 858 incident diabetes-related cancers (crude incidence rate [IR; per 1,000 person-years] = 3.4) and 3,533 non-diabetes-related cancers (IR = 14.1). Among sulfonylurea users (n = 28,237), there were 675 incident diabetes-related cancers (IR = 5.5) and 2,316 non-diabetes-related cancers (IR = 18.9). After IPTW adjustment, metformin use was associated with a lower risk of incident diabetes-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75) compared to sulfonylurea use. There was no association between treatment group (metformin versus sulfonylurea) and non-diabetes-related cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.02). Of diabetes-related cancers, metformin users had lower incidence of liver (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.28-0.53), colorectal (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92), and esophageal cancers (HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.81). Among US veterans, metformin users had lower incidence of diabetes-related cancer, particularly liver, colorectal, and esophageal cancers, as compared to sulfonylurea users. Use of metformin was not associated with non-diabetes-related cancer. Further studies are needed to understand how metformin use impacts cancer incidence in different patient populations.
3.Risk of Incident Cancer in Veterans with Diabetes Who Use Metformin Versus Sulfonylureas
Maya M. ABDALLAH ; Beatriz Desanti de OLIVEIRA ; Clark DUMONTIER ; Ariela R. ORKABY ; Lisa NUSSBAUM ; Michael GAZIANO ; Luc DJOUSSE ; David GAGNON ; Kelly CHO ; Sarah R. PREIS ; Jane A. DRIVER
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):140-147
Prior research suggests metformin has anti-cancer effects, yet data are limited. We examined the association between diabetes treatment (metformin versus sulfonylurea) and risk of incident diabetes-related and non- diabetes-related cancers in US veterans.This retrospective cohort study included US veterans, without cancer, aged ≥ 55 years, who were new users of metformin or sulfo-nylureas for diabetes between 2001 to 2012. Cox proportional hazards models, with propensity score-matched inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were constructed. A total of 88,713 veterans (mean age 68.6 ± 7.8 years; 97.7% male; 84.1% White, 12.6% Black, 3.3% other race) were followed for 4.2 ± 3.0 years. Among metformin users (n = 60,476), there were 858 incident diabetes-related cancers (crude incidence rate [IR; per 1,000 person-years] = 3.4) and 3,533 non-diabetes-related cancers (IR = 14.1). Among sulfonylurea users (n = 28,237), there were 675 incident diabetes-related cancers (IR = 5.5) and 2,316 non-diabetes-related cancers (IR = 18.9). After IPTW adjustment, metformin use was associated with a lower risk of incident diabetes-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75) compared to sulfonylurea use. There was no association between treatment group (metformin versus sulfonylurea) and non-diabetes-related cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.02). Of diabetes-related cancers, metformin users had lower incidence of liver (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.28-0.53), colorectal (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92), and esophageal cancers (HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.81). Among US veterans, metformin users had lower incidence of diabetes-related cancer, particularly liver, colorectal, and esophageal cancers, as compared to sulfonylurea users. Use of metformin was not associated with non-diabetes-related cancer. Further studies are needed to understand how metformin use impacts cancer incidence in different patient populations.
4.Risk of Incident Cancer in Veterans with Diabetes Who Use Metformin Versus Sulfonylureas
Maya M. ABDALLAH ; Beatriz Desanti de OLIVEIRA ; Clark DUMONTIER ; Ariela R. ORKABY ; Lisa NUSSBAUM ; Michael GAZIANO ; Luc DJOUSSE ; David GAGNON ; Kelly CHO ; Sarah R. PREIS ; Jane A. DRIVER
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):140-147
Prior research suggests metformin has anti-cancer effects, yet data are limited. We examined the association between diabetes treatment (metformin versus sulfonylurea) and risk of incident diabetes-related and non- diabetes-related cancers in US veterans.This retrospective cohort study included US veterans, without cancer, aged ≥ 55 years, who were new users of metformin or sulfo-nylureas for diabetes between 2001 to 2012. Cox proportional hazards models, with propensity score-matched inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were constructed. A total of 88,713 veterans (mean age 68.6 ± 7.8 years; 97.7% male; 84.1% White, 12.6% Black, 3.3% other race) were followed for 4.2 ± 3.0 years. Among metformin users (n = 60,476), there were 858 incident diabetes-related cancers (crude incidence rate [IR; per 1,000 person-years] = 3.4) and 3,533 non-diabetes-related cancers (IR = 14.1). Among sulfonylurea users (n = 28,237), there were 675 incident diabetes-related cancers (IR = 5.5) and 2,316 non-diabetes-related cancers (IR = 18.9). After IPTW adjustment, metformin use was associated with a lower risk of incident diabetes-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75) compared to sulfonylurea use. There was no association between treatment group (metformin versus sulfonylurea) and non-diabetes-related cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.02). Of diabetes-related cancers, metformin users had lower incidence of liver (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.28-0.53), colorectal (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92), and esophageal cancers (HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.81). Among US veterans, metformin users had lower incidence of diabetes-related cancer, particularly liver, colorectal, and esophageal cancers, as compared to sulfonylurea users. Use of metformin was not associated with non-diabetes-related cancer. Further studies are needed to understand how metformin use impacts cancer incidence in different patient populations.
5.Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis: An Australian Institution’s Experience
Ming Han LIM ; Anton R. LORD ; Lisa A. SIMMS ; Katherine HANIGAN ; Aleksandra EDMUNDSON ; Matthew J.F.X. RICKARD ; Russell STITZ ; David A. CLARK ; Graham L. RADFORD-SMITH
Annals of Coloproctology 2021;37(5):318-325
Purpose:
We report outcomes and evaluate patient factors and the impact of surgical evolution on outcomes in consecutive ulcerative colitis patients who had restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) at an Australian institution over 26 years.
Methods:
Data including clinical characteristics, preoperative medical therapy, and surgical outcomes were collected. We divided eligible patients into 3 period arms (period 1, 1990 to 1999; period 2, 2000 to 2009; period 3, 2010 to 2016). Outcomes of interest were IPAA leak and pouch failure.
Results:
A total of 212 patients were included. Median follow-up was 50 (interquartile range, 17 to 120) months. Rates of early and late complications were 34.9% and 52.0%, respectively. Early complications included wound infection (9.4%), pelvic sepsis (8.0%), and small bowel obstruction (6.6%) while late complications included small bowel obstruction (18.9%), anal stenosis (16.8%), and pouch fistula (13.3%). Overall, IPAA leak rate was 6.1% and pouch failure rate was 4.8%. Eighty-three patients (42.3%) experienced pouchitis. Over time, we observed an increase in patient exposure to thiopurine (P=0.0025), cyclosporin (P=0.0002), and anti-tumor necrosis factor (P<0.00001) coupled with a shift to laparoscopic technique (P<0.00001), stapled IPAA (P<0.00001), J pouch configuration (P<0.00001), a modified 2-stage procedure (P=0.00012), and a decline in defunctioning ileostomy rate at time of IPAA (P=0.00002). Apart from pouchitis, there was no significant difference in surgical and chronic inflammatory pouch outcomes with time.
Conclusion
Despite greater patient exposure to immunomodulatory and biologic therapy before surgery coupled with a significant change in surgical techniques, surgical and chronic inflammatory pouch outcome rates have remained stable.