GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REPORTED PROCEDURAL VOLUME AMONG VITREORETINAL FELLOWS
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REPORTED PROCEDURAL VOLUME AMONG VITREORETINAL FELLOWS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/iae.0000000000002942
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Sridhar, Jayanth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Reyes-Capo, Daniela P.;Yannuzzi, Nicolas A.;Sridhar, Jayanth
目的：先前的一项研究显示，男性和女性眼科住院医师自我报告的手术数量存在差异。本研究进一步调查了玻璃体视网膜手术研究员自我报告的手术量的性别差异，并检查了男性和女性玻璃体视网膜研究员之间手术，医疗和总自我报告的手术量的差异。研究方法：对2018年7月1日至2019年6月30日由第一年和第二年玻璃体视网膜研究员提交给美国视网膜专家协会的病例日志进行了回顾性审查。报告少于100例睫状体平坦部玻璃体切除术的研究员被排除在外。共包括133名研究员。结果：总体而言，57名一年级研究员中有37名（65%）为男性，76名二年级研究员中有59名（78%）为男性。在所有玻璃体视网膜研究员中，平均有1,120例手术是自我报告的。在完成研究金的第二年研究员组中，男性报告了更多的总手术（1，171 [864 - 1，600] vs. 1，005 [719 - 1，257]; P = 0.072）。与男性相比，女性报告的眼内激光（P = 0.018）、内界膜剥离（P = 0.042）和冷冻视网膜固定术（P = 0.002）手术数量在统计学上显著减少。当按总手术与医疗程序划分数据时，男性报告的手术次数多于女性，无论是手术（1，077 [799 - 1，490] vs. 925 [622 - 1，208]; P = 0.085）还是医疗（72 [41 - 116] vs. 56 [20 - 94]; P = 0.141），尽管这些差异在统计学上并不显着。结论：有一种趋势，女性玻璃体视网膜研究员报告的外科手术比男性同行少，引起了人们对玻璃体视网膜手术培训中性别差距的关注。需要进一步的研究来验证这种差异，并确定女性玻璃体视网膜外科医生在培训中面临的潜在障碍。
Purpose: A prior study revealed discrepancies in self-reported surgical numbers between male and female ophthalmology residents. This study further investigates the gender differences in self-reported procedural volume among vitreoretinal surgery fellows and examines the differences for surgical, medical, and total self-reported procedural volume between male and female vitreoretinal fellows. Methods: A retrospective review of case logs submitted to the American Society of Retina Specialists by first-year and second-year vitreoretinal fellows from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, was performed. Fellows who reported fewer than 100 pars plana vitrectomies were excluded. A total of 133 fellows were included. Results: Overall, 37 of 57 (65%) first-year fellows and 59 of 76 (78%) second-year fellows were male. An average of 1,120 procedures were self-reported among all vitreoretinal fellows. In the group of second-year fellows at the completion of fellowship, men reported more total procedures (1,171 [864-1,600] vs. 1,005 [719-1,257]; P = 0.072). Women reported statistically significant fewer endolaser (P = 0.018), internal limiting membrane peel (P = 0.042), and cryoretinopexy (P = 0.002) procedures compared with men. When splitting the data by total surgical versus medical procedures, men reported more procedures than women both surgically (1,077 [799-1,490] vs. 925 [622-1,208]; P = 0.085) and medically (72 [41-116] vs. 56 [20-94]; P = 0.141), although these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: There is a trend for female vitreoretinal fellows to report fewer surgical procedures than their male counterparts, raising concerns for gender gaps in vitreoretinal surgical training. Further research is needed to verify this discrepancy and identify potential barriers that female vitreoretinal surgeons are facing in training.