English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

OBJECTIVES Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a technically demanding procedure usually carried out by highly experienced surgeons. However, in this era of modern endovascular surgery with growing numbers of patients qualifying for the procedure, the need to enhance surgical training has emerged. Our aim was to compare the technical results of EVAR in patients operated on by trainees to that of those operated on by an endovascular expert. METHODS Between 2016 and 2018, a total of 119 patients diagnosed with an abdominal aorta disease requiring EVAR were admitted to our clinic. Overall, we included 96 patients who underwent preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiography and EVAR performed either by an endovascular expert (N = 51) or a trainee (N = 45). RESULTS We detected no difference in the baseline characteristics, indication for EVAR and preoperative anatomy between patients operated on by trainees and our endovascular expert. We noted the same incidence of endoleak type Ia occurrence (n = 2 vs n = 2, P = 1.00), reintervention rate (n = 0 vs n = 0, P = 1.00) and in-hospital mortality (n = 0 vs n = 1, P = 1.00) for operations done by trainees and the expert, respectively. There was no difference in X-ray doses or time between the 2 groups. Despite longer median operation times [112 (first quartile: 84; third quartile: 129) vs 89 (75–104) min; P = 0.03] and in-hospital stays [10 (8–13) vs 8 (7–10) days, P = 0.007] of the patients operated on by trainees, the overall clinical success of EVAR was satisfactory in both groups. CONCLUSIONS An EVAR planned and performed by a trainee need not raise the cumulative risk of the procedure. Trainees who have undergone both mind and hand skills training can therefore carry out EVAR under the supervision of an experienced specialist as effectively and safely as experts do.

Can a trainee perform endovascular aortic repair as effectively and safely as an experienced specialist?