advanced laparoscopic fellowship and general surgery residency can co-exist without detracting from...

Post on 12-Jan-2016

214 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Advanced Laparoscopic Fellowship and General

Surgery Residency can Co-exist without Detracting from Surgical Resident Operative

Experience

Shanu N. Kothari, M.D., F.A.C.S.Thomas H. Cogbill, M.D., F.A.C.S.

Colette T. O’HeronMichelle A. Mathiason, M.S.

Surgical Endoscopy (2001) 15:1066-1070.

• 47% of residents felt that additional training was necessary to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures

Surgical Endoscopy (2001) 15:1066-1070.

Rattner DW, et al.

• 47% of residents felt that additional training was necessary to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures

• 65% of respondents would pursue an additional year of advanced laparoscopic training if it were available

Surgical Endoscopy (2001) 15:1066-1070.

Rattner DW, et al.

• 1993: <10 programs

• 2004: 80 programs• 2005: 91 programs• 2006: 108 programs• 2007: 127 programs

* National Resident Matching Program. Results and Data. Specialties Matching Service 2008 Appointment Year. NRMP,

February 2008

# of MIS Fellowships*

• 1993: <10 programs

• 2004: 80 programs• 2005: 91 programs• 2006: 108 programs• 2007: 127 programs

* National Resident Matching Program. Results and Data. Specialties Matching Service 2008 Appointment Year. NRMP,

February 2008

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Su

rger

ies

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

# of MIS Fellowships*

# of Bariatric Procedures

The Concern

Residents Graduating with Suboptimal

Advanced Laparoscopic Case Load

More Advanced Laparoscopic Fellowships

More Advanced Laparoscopic Fellows Competing for Cases

Objective

• To evaluate the impact of adding an advanced laparoscopic fellowship on general surgery residency case volume at our institution

Gundersen Lutheran

• 325 bed community-based teaching hospital

• ACGME–accredited general surgery residency since 1974

• 2 chief residents each year

Gundersen Lutheran

• August 2001, established a minimally invasive clinical bariatric surgery program

• In July 2003, initiated minimally invasive bariatric/advanced laparoscopic fellowship

Four Surgical Services

• Vascular• Trauma• Endocrine/oncology • Minimally Invasive

Surgery/Bariatric

Four Surgical Services

– Ideally, there is a junior and senior resident assigned to each service

– All chief residents spend three months on each service

– The only MIS case exclusively performed by fellows is laparoscopic gastric bypasses

– Fellows are allowed to perform non-bariatric advanced laparoscopic cases if the complexity of the procedure is beyond the skill level of a resident on the service, as determined by the attending surgeon, or the case is uncovered. Otherwise, all advanced laparoscopic cases are performed with the resident as “surgeon” and the attending or fellow as “teaching assistant”

Initiation of Laparoscopic

Fellowship Program

2000 2004 2007

Resident Laparoscopic Case Load

Resident + Fellow Laparoscopic Case Load

Statistical Analysis

• T-test was used to compare pre fellowship to post fellowship case numbers

• Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05

Fellows’ ExperienceFellow

Graduate Year

Basic Laparoscopi

c

Advanced Laparoscopic Non-Bariatric

Advanced Laparoscopic Bariatric

Total

2004 31 40 106 177

2005 42 76 100 218

2006 50 66 113 229

2007 30 85 83 198

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Pre-Fellowship

Mea

n #

Cas

es

Basic Cases

Resident Case Volume Pre/Post-Fellowship

140.5 ± 19.4

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Pre-Fellowship Post-Fellowship

Me

an

# C

as

es

Basic Cases*

Resident Case Volume Pre/Post-Fellowship

* P=0.003

140.5 ± 19.4 193.3 ± 34.5

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Pre-Fellowship Post-Fellowship

Mea

n #

Cas

es

Basic Cases*

Advanced Cases**

Resident Case Volume Pre/Post-Fellowship

* P=0.003

140.5 ± 19.4

193.3 ± 34.5

77 ± 17.8

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Pre-Fellowship Post-Fellowship

Me

an

# C

as

es

Basic Cases*

Advanced Cases**

Resident Case Volume Pre/Post-Fellowship

* P=0.003; **P=0.005

140.5 ± 19.4

193.3 ± 34.5

77 ± 17.8 113.3 ± 23.5

All Non-Bariatric Laparoscopic Cases per Surgeon during Graduating Year

All Non-Bariatric Laparoscopic Cases per Surgeon during Graduating Year

*In addition to these laparoscopic cases, fellows performed a mean of 101 laparoscopic bariatric cases during their fellowship year.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorrhaphy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

GL Average SJ + SC National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorrhaphy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

GL Fellow GL Average SJ + SC National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Inguinal Herniorrhaphy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

GL Average SJ + SC National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

GL Fellow GL Average SJ + SC National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Partial Colectomy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

GL Average SJ + SC National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Partial Colectomy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year

N

GL Fellow GL Average SJ + SC National Average SJ + SC

Laparoscopic Partial Colectomy

Discussion

Discussion

• A high volume of basic and advanced laparoscopic procedures should be performed at the sponsoring institution to limit competition for those cases by residents and fellows

Discussion

• A high volume of basic and advanced laparoscopic procedures should be performed at the sponsoring institution to limit competition for those cases by residents and fellows

• Clear cut ground rules need to be established and followed – who is assigned to be surgeon, under what circumstances, and who is primarily responsible for perioperative management of each patient

Discussion• A high volume of basic and advanced laparoscopic

procedures should be performed at the sponsoring institution to limit competition for those cases by residents and fellows

• Clear cut ground rules need to be established and followed – who is assigned to be surgeon, under what circumstances, and who is primarily responsible for perioperative management of each patient

• Open communication and excellent working relationship between residency director and fellowship director is essential

Limitations

Limitations

• Our general surgery program is small, and the lack of a chief resident on the MIS service for 6 months of the year may positively affect our fellows’ operating experience and may not be applicable to large surgery programs that always have a chief resident on service

Limitations

• Our general surgery program is small, and the lack of a chief resident on the MIS service for 6 months of the year may positively affect our fellows’ operating experience and may not be applicable to large surgery programs that always have a chief resident on service

• Several MIS fellowships have more than one fellow present and this may dilute the exposure of a defined set of advanced MIS cases amongst residents and fellows even further

Limitations• Our general surgery program is small, and the lack of a

chief resident on the MIS service for 6 months of the year may positively affect our fellows’ operating experience and may not be applicable to large surgery programs that always have a chief resident on service

• Several MIS fellowships have more than one fellow present and this may dilute the exposure of a defined set of advanced MIS cases amongst residents and fellows even further

• The fellowship director makes it very clear that they cannot “steal” cases from the surgery residents; rather acting as a teaching assistant, unless the case is uncovered. As a result, our data may not be comparable to programs that do not have similar “ground rules” for the resident–fellow interactions

Conclusion

• General surgery resident experience with basic and non-bariatric advanced laparoscopic cases did not decrease with the addition of an advanced laparoscopic fellowship

Conclusion

• General surgery resident experience with basic and non-bariatric advanced laparoscopic cases did not decrease with the addition of an advanced laparoscopic fellowship

• Residents’ operative case volume during their chief year was not negatively impacted

Conclusion

• As a result of the cooperative efforts of the fellowship and residency directors as well as an expansion of the total number of laparoscopic cases performed at our institution due to changes in clinical practice, surgery residents reported an increase in the number of laparoscopic cases while a successful fellowship was established

top related