Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) intervention needs a specific training and a sufficient learning curve to obtain optimal results in terms of outcome. A formative program was settled up in a single academic center to optimize training of standard CEA procedures. This study aims to evaluate the 11-year results of the teaching CEA program. Methods: The trainees CEA teaching program is carried on during the 5-year vascular surgery residency period, and it is stratified as follows: learning theory and intervention assistance (minimum 50 procedures per year) in the first and second residency year; performing CEA as second operator in the third and fourth residency year (minimum 50 procedures per year); CEA execution as first operator with attending supervision in the last residency year. All CEA procedures from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively collected and the 30-day results were compared according to the expertise of the first operator: experienced vascular surgeons (EVSs) versus trainees. All CEA procedures were performed in general anesthesia, with routine shunting and patching. Results: In the study period, 1,379 (361 [26.2%] symptomatic; 1,018 [73.8%] asymptomatic) CEAs were performed. Trainees performed 199 (14.4%) CEAs as first operator. Patients submitted to CEA by trainees were similar in terms of preoperative clinical characteristics except for the patients' age (trainees 72.4 years versus EVS 70.8 years, P = 0.02) and smoking history (trainees 30.7% versus EVS 24.1%, P = 0.04). The 30-day complication rates were similar in CEA performed by trainees versus EVS: stroke 0.5% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.5; death 0.0% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.6; stroke/death 0.5% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.24; hematoma 3.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.48; and cranial nerve injury 9.0% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.47, respectively. The intervention time was significantly longer in CEAs performed by trainees compared with EVS: 104 ± 1.9 min versus 98 ± 1.0 min, P = 0.02. Conclusions: With a defined CEA teaching program, trainees can obtain results similar to those of more experienced surgeons in terms of clinical outcome at the price of an increased intervention time.

The Value of Carotid Endarterectomy as a Learning Tool for Trainees

Cacioppa, Laura Maria;Pini, Rodolfo;Longhi, Matteo;Vacirca, Andrea;Gallitto, Enrico;Faggioli, Gianluca;Gargiulo, Mauro;Stella, Andrea
2018

Abstract

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) intervention needs a specific training and a sufficient learning curve to obtain optimal results in terms of outcome. A formative program was settled up in a single academic center to optimize training of standard CEA procedures. This study aims to evaluate the 11-year results of the teaching CEA program. Methods: The trainees CEA teaching program is carried on during the 5-year vascular surgery residency period, and it is stratified as follows: learning theory and intervention assistance (minimum 50 procedures per year) in the first and second residency year; performing CEA as second operator in the third and fourth residency year (minimum 50 procedures per year); CEA execution as first operator with attending supervision in the last residency year. All CEA procedures from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively collected and the 30-day results were compared according to the expertise of the first operator: experienced vascular surgeons (EVSs) versus trainees. All CEA procedures were performed in general anesthesia, with routine shunting and patching. Results: In the study period, 1,379 (361 [26.2%] symptomatic; 1,018 [73.8%] asymptomatic) CEAs were performed. Trainees performed 199 (14.4%) CEAs as first operator. Patients submitted to CEA by trainees were similar in terms of preoperative clinical characteristics except for the patients' age (trainees 72.4 years versus EVS 70.8 years, P = 0.02) and smoking history (trainees 30.7% versus EVS 24.1%, P = 0.04). The 30-day complication rates were similar in CEA performed by trainees versus EVS: stroke 0.5% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.5; death 0.0% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.6; stroke/death 0.5% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.24; hematoma 3.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.48; and cranial nerve injury 9.0% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.47, respectively. The intervention time was significantly longer in CEAs performed by trainees compared with EVS: 104 ± 1.9 min versus 98 ± 1.0 min, P = 0.02. Conclusions: With a defined CEA teaching program, trainees can obtain results similar to those of more experienced surgeons in terms of clinical outcome at the price of an increased intervention time.
Cacioppa, Laura Maria; Pini, Rodolfo; Longhi, Matteo; Vacirca, Andrea; Gallitto, Enrico; Faggioli, Gianluca; Gargiulo, Mauro; Stella, Andrea
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/619972
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact