Vascular Surgery Procedures Performed By Residents. A Narrative Review On The Impact In 30-Day Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, there is an increase in scrutiny after surgical treatment of a vast array of pathologies. Doing so, a large body of evidence clearly supports centralisation, such as teaching hospitals, where a larger caseload enables optimal outcomes. These institutions have a strong presence of surgical residents seeking training in both technical and non-technical skills. Inevitably, as part of training, they will be involved in the surgical treatment of those patients, even as the primary operator. We sought to investigate the impact of trainee performed procedures in outcomes of common vascular procedures of different technical complexity. METHODS: A non-systematic MEDLINE and Scopus databases review on the outcomes of resident performed common vascular procedures was performed. RESULTS: Specific evidence in many procedures (venous disease, aortic aneurysms, peripheral artery disease) is lacking. After carotid endarterectomy (CEA), resident performed procedures seem to have similar cranial nerve palsy and stroke when compared to expert surgeons. Generally, resident-performed primary radiocephalic and elbow arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presents similar primary and secondary patency. As with CEA, AVF procedures performed by residents took longer. On aortic aneurysms, although no specific comparison has been performed, resident involvement (irrespective of surgeon or assistant) in these procedures does not seem associated with increased adverse events. CONCLUSION: In most vascular surgery procedures, little is known about resident performance and their impact on outcomes. Notwithstanding, resident-performed CEA and primary AVF seem free of major compromise to patients. Further research is warranted to clarify this topic.

Intravascular foreign body retrieval.

INTRODUCTION: Intravascular foreign body (IFB) embolization is a potential complication of any vascular procedure. Intravascular foreign body retrieval (IFBR) can be achieved using percutaneous techniques, open surgery, or both combined. METHODS: We completed a retrospective review of patients who underwent endovascular or open IFBR since 2011 on our institution. Primary end-point was technical retrieval success, and secondary end-points were procedure-related compli- cations and 30-days survival. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients underwent IFBR. Median time from intravascular device loss and retrieval was less than one day. 67% were non-endovascular guidewires and sheath fragments (N=28). 59% of IFBs were lost during their deployment (N=16); 41% during their removal attempts (N=11). 44% were lost in the arterial system (N=12) and 52% in the venous system (N=14). An endovascular procedure was used as the first approach in IFBR in 56% of patients (N=15) and open procedure in 44% (N=12). In the presence of IFB on the thoracic or abdominal cavity, it was always tried a first-endo approach; if IFB was present on the neck or limbs, 75% were retrieved by open surgery (N=20; p<0.001). Success rates were 100% for open and 87% for endovascular procedures. IFB caused five acute complications: one IJV thrombosis, two strokes and three acute limb ischemia. There were no IFBR-related complications. 30 days-survival was 100%. CONCLUSION: Embolization of IFBs can be minimized with proper device selection, deployment and removal. In this study, open and endovascular retrieval had high success rates and minimal morbidity. Its choice is surgeon-dependent and restrained by devices availability.