ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
Surgeon case conferencing in elective aortic surgery.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeon case conferences (SCCs) involve same-phenotype surgeons (i.e., surgeons who perform similar procedures such as orthopedic or vascular surgeons) meeting to discuss upcoming consecutive cases; other specialties are excluded to ensure a focus on surgical considerations. Given that some studies found that SCCs sometimes led to treatment plan changes among patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, we sought to test SCCs in vascular surgery.
methodsA pre-study workshop with researchers and vascular surgeons at a single institution produced relevant SCC elements, including the decision to focus on aortic procedures; definitions of major (e.g., convert from open to endovascular approach) and minor (e.g., additional preoperative testing) treatment changes; and an aortic SCC form. The form facilitated collection of data related to the initial treatment plan, the consensus treatment plan, and a description of treatment plan changes. During subsequent SCCs, for each patient, the primary surgeon presented their initial treatment plan, a confidence score for this plan (on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, from no to high confidence), and patient details. Subsequent group discussion produced a consensus treatment plan and a description of any plan changes. Study outcomes included rates of major and minor change from the primary surgeon's initial plan to the consensus plan, and confidence scores for patients with and without a plan change.
resultsSix vascular surgeons from a single academic hospital with a high procedure volume reviewed 100 consecutive patients during 33 aortic SCCs over a 10-month period. The rate of change from initial to consensus treatment plans was 39%. Rates of major and minor changes were 10% and 29%, respectively. Patient and treatment measures were similar for patients with and without a treatment change. Confidence scores for initial treatment plans were similar for patients with and without a change (median score 4 and 5, respectively;
conclusionA structured SCC changed 39% of primary vascular surgeons' initial treatment plans related to aortic procedures, even though confidence scores in initial treatment plans were similar for patients with and without changes. Our results suggest that vascular surgeons should seek structured input from colleagues for all patient cases not just those they perceive as challenging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.