BackgroundDifferential choices of radiology subspecialties by radiology trainees can cause shortages in some subspecialties. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relative preference of different radiology subspecialties and the influencing factors among radiology trainees in Saudi Arabia. MethodsAn online questionnaire was developed based on previous publications and was used to collect the data from radiology trainees in Saudi Arabia during August 2018. The relative importance of potential personal and work-related factors was assessed using Likert-scaled responses.ResultsA total of 105 radiology trainees were included in the current analysis. Approximately 64.8% of the trainees were males. A total of eight subspecialties were reported, with the most frequent being interventional radiology (20%), neuroradiology (19%), abdominal/gastrointestinal (15.2%), and musculoskeletal (14.3%). Personal factors that were reported as extremely or very important included strong personal interest (84.8%), successful/enjoyable rotation during training (84.8%), and intellectual challenge (76.2%). Work-related factors that were reported as extremely or very important included direct impact on patient care (84.8%), advanced or a variety of imaging modalities (81%), direct professional contact (77.1%), and favorable/flexibility of working hours and on-call commitments (77.1%). The subspecialty of interventional radiology was more frequently chosen by male trainees (p = 0.006), while the gynecological/breast subspecialty was exclusively chosen by female trainees (p < 0.001).ConclusionIn addition to gender-specific differences, we are reporting several important personal and professional factors that influence the choice of radiology subspecialty. These findings can potentially help the directors of radiology training in making evidence-based modifications to their residency programs to ensure the maintenance of a sufficient radiology workforce.

Background: The use of autologous grafts is a standard reconstructive option in plastic surgery. The absence of a well-established protocol for decontamination after accidental contamination increases the risk of postoperative infection. We aimed to explore the current practice and decontamination methods among Saudi plastic surgeons. This would help develop a well-established, unified method of decontamination intraoperatively. Methods: A validated self-administered questionnaire cross-sectional study was conducted in February 2022. The questionnaire was distributed through social media to all board-certified plastic surgeons in Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was designed to obtain data on incidents, treatment preferences, and management of autograft contamination. Results: A total sample size of 61 participants was included, with an overall response rate of 64.58%. Out of the 61 respondents, 73.8% (n = 45) had previously experienced graft contamination. Regarding the methods of graft contamination, the most common way was accidentally dropping the graft on the floor (39.7%, n = 25). The majority of the surgeons answered that they decontaminated the graft using povidone-iodine (44.6%, n = 29) and then used it (45.9%, n = 28). The lower extremity area was the most common anatomical location having surgery at the time of the graft contamination, accounting for 32.5% of the cases (n = 25). Conclusions: Our study indicates that graft contamination is a common occurrence among our population, but we lack national guidelines on dealing with these situations. Although most responders used adequate decontamination methods, the lack of standardization could pose a risk to patients.

No abstract