The likelihood of death after major surgery remains the same, regardless of whether the surgeon and patient share the same gender.
This is according to a study published by The BMJ.
Analysing a vast dataset encompassing nearly three million Medicare patients in the US aged 65-99 undergoing various surgical procedures between 2016 and 2019, researchers discovered that gender alignment between patients and surgeons didn’t notably impact postoperative mortality rates.
Contrary to expectations rooted in assumptions about improved communication and reduced biases in gender-concordant physician-patient pairings, the study's findings indicate that such matches didn’t yield significant advantages in patient outcomes,
The results, therefore, challenge prevailing beliefs.
The research aimed to investigate if patient-surgeon gender alignment influenced post-surgery mortality rates.
It encompassed 14 common operations, including coronary artery bypass, knee or hip replacements, hysterectomy, and other major procedures.
The analysis accounted for multiple variables like patient and surgeon demographics and hospital-specific factors.
Surprisingly, the study found that death rates within 30 days of surgery were almost identical, irrespective of gender concordance.
While slight variations were noted, they were statistically insignificant and deemed clinically irrelevant.
For instance, elective surgery conducted by female surgeons exhibited marginally lower patient death rates (0.5%) than those performed by male surgeons (0.8%). However, no substantial difference emerged in urgent procedures.
The researchers proposed potential explanations for these nuanced differences. They suggested that factors such as adherence to clinical guidelines and postoperative care practices might marginally differ between male and female surgeons, particularly in elective operations where patients can select their surgeon.
However, the study’s observational nature precludes establishing causation, underscoring the need to explore further unmeasured socio-cultural aspects that might influence these outcomes.
The researchers also cautioned that these findings might not be universally applicable, urging continued research to understand the broader impact of surgeon-patient gender dynamics on surgical outcomes.
Nonetheless, the authors emphasised the significance of understanding these dynamics in refining patient care processes.
They stressed the importance of ongoing research to delve deeper into how gender and shared identity intersect with quality of care and surgical outcomes.
While challenging the prevailing assumptions about the impact of gender concordance in surgical settings, this study marks a pivotal step in unravelling the complexities of patient care. It underscores the need for nuanced, ongoing research to enhance healthcare practices for diverse patient populations.
