ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Defining benchmarks for fellowship training in foregut surgery: a 10-year review of fellowship council index cases.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- SIMPL data, complex procedures: a national analysis of chief resident competency in foregut and bariatric surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery Fellowships: results of a 1-year pilot program : Pilot of hernia surgery fellowship.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical treatment of foregut disease is a complex field that demands advanced expertise to ensure favorable outcomes for patients. To address the growing need for foregut surgeons, leaders within several national societies have become interested in developing a foregut fellowship. The aim of this study was to develop data-driven benchmarks that will aid in defining appropriate accreditation criteria for these fellowships.
methodsWe obtained case log data for Fellowship Council fellows trained from 2009-2019. We identified 78 complex foregut (non-bariatric) case codes and divided them into 5 index case categories including (1) hiatal/paraoesophageal hernia repair, (2) fundoplication, (3) esophageal myotomy, (4) major organ resection, and (5) minor organ resection. Median volumes in each index category were compared over time using Kruskall-Wallis tests. The share of cases done using open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches were analyzed using linear regression analysis.
resultsFor the 10 years analyzed, 1362 fellows logged 82,889 operations and 111,799 endoscopies. Median foregut cases per fellow grew significantly from 42 (IQR = 24-74) cases in 2010 to 69 (IQR = 33-106) cases in 2019. Median endoscopy volumes also grew significantly from 42 (IQR = 7-88) in 2010 to 69 (IQR 32-123) in 2019.The volume of hiatal/paraoesophageal hernia repairs increased significantly over time while volumes in the remaining 4 index categories remained stable. The share of robotic cases exhibited near perfect linear growth from 2.2% of all foregut cases in 2010 to 14.4% in 2019 (R = 0.99, p < 0.0001). Open cases exhibited linear decay from 7.2% of cases in 2010 to 4.7% of cases in 2019 (R = 0.92, p = 0.0001). Laparoscopic/thoracoscopic cases also exhibited linear decay from 90.6% of cases in 2010 to 80.9% of cases in 2019 (R = 0.98, p < 0.00001).
conclusionsFC fellows are exposed to robust volumes of foregut cases. This rich data set provides an evidence-based guide for establishing criteria for potential foregut fellowships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35641699What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.