LAUSR

INTRODUCTION The U.S. Navy routinely deploys aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships throughout the world in support of U.S. strategic interests, each with an embarked single surgeon team. Surgeons and their teams are required to participate in lengthy pre-deployment shipboard certifications before each deployment. Given the well-established relationship of surgeon volume to patient outcome, we aim to compare the impact of land vs. maritime deployments on Navy general surgeon practice patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS Case logs and pre-deployment training initiation of land-based (n = 8) vs. maritime-based (n = 7) U.S. Navy general surgeons over a 3-year period (2017-2020) were compared. Average cases per week were plotted over 26 weeks before deployment. Student's t-test was utilized for all comparisons. RESULTS Cases declined for both groups in the weeks before deployment. At 6 months (26 weeks) before deployment, land-based surgeons performed significantly more cases than their maritime colleagues (50.3 vs. 14.0, P = .009). This difference persisted at 16 weeks (13.1 vs. 1.9, P = .011) and 12 weeks (13.1 vs. 1.9, P = .011). Overall, surgeon operative volume fell off earlier for maritime surgeons (16 weeks) than land-based surgeons (8 weeks). Within 8 weeks of deployment, both groups performed a similarly low number of cases as they completed final deployment preparations. CONCLUSIONS Surgeons are a critical component of combat causality care teams. In this analysis, we have demonstrated that both land- and maritime-based U.S. Navy surgeons have prolonged periods away from clinical care before and during deployments; for shipboard surgeons, this deficit is large and may negatively impact patient outcomes in the deployed maritime environment. The authors describe this discrepancy and provide practical doctrinal solutions to close this readiness gap.