OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review our institute's open aortic surgery volume experience and its impact on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education trainees. METHODS: A review was conducted of the vascular surgery department's operative database for all cases that underwent aortic aneurysm repair, whether open aortic repair (OAR), endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), or fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR). We also reviewed our graduating trainees' case logs. In the setting of our regionalized referral center, all patients who underwent open or endovascular aortic intervention between 2010 and 2014 at our main campus were included. The total number of aortic procedures performed by our graduation trainees was determined. All aortic aneurysm interventions, both open and endovascular (both EVAR and FEVAR), were included. The main outcome measures were the total number of aortic interventions, any change in trends of intervention, and the total number of open aortic cases that our graduation trainees had. RESULTS: During the 5-year period analyzed, a total of 1389 abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures were performed by OAR, EVAR, and FEVAR. Of those, 462 were OARs, representing 33.2% of the total; 440 were EVARs, representing 31.6%; and 487 were FEVARs, representing 35.2%. For all OAR procedures, there was a significant increase in the proportion of these cases over time (P = .014). The total number of EVAR and FEVAR cases performed annually during this time did not change, whereas the number of OAR cases has increased. Of the OARs, 59.3% were performed for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas 22.9% involved type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. On average, graduating vascular surgery trainees performed 23.1 OARs before graduation (range, 19-26). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the documented national trend of decreased OAR, our institute continues to see increased OAR relative to EVAR and FEVAR. Moreover, we theorized that the preservation of OAR volume in our program and other similar institutions might offer a practical solution to the challenge of addressing vascular surgery training in aortic surgery by OAR, EVAR, and FEVAR. Inclusive discussions at the national and international levels are needed to reach consensus regarding the future of vascular surgery training and key issues, such as additional, mandatory, subspecialized training in OAR and FEVAR for both residents and fellows who wish to receive certification in OAR; creation of centers of excellence for open aortic surgery that would centralize OAR and direct trainees to those centers for their needed training; and possibly development of new training strategies whereby single cases can be shared among trainees with alternating roles as exposure and closure vs repair.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review our institute's open aortic surgery volume experience and its impact on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education trainees. METHODS: A review was conducted of the vascular surgery department's operative database for all cases that underwent aortic aneurysm repair, whether open aortic repair (OAR), endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), or fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR). We also reviewed our graduating trainees' case logs. In the setting of our regionalized referral center, all patients who underwent open or endovascular aortic intervention between 2010 and 2014 at our main campus were included. The total number of aortic procedures performed by our graduation trainees was determined. All aortic aneurysm interventions, both open and endovascular (both EVAR and FEVAR), were included. The main outcome measures were the total number of aortic interventions, any change in trends of intervention, and the total number of open aortic cases that our graduation trainees had. RESULTS: During the 5-year period analyzed, a total of 1389 abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures were performed by OAR, EVAR, and FEVAR. Of those, 462 were OARs, representing 33.2% of the total; 440 were EVARs, representing 31.6%; and 487 were FEVARs, representing 35.2%. For all OAR procedures, there was a significant increase in the proportion of these cases over time (P = .014). The total number of EVAR and FEVAR cases performed annually during this time did not change, whereas the number of OAR cases has increased. Of the OARs, 59.3% were performed for juxtarenal aneurysms, whereas 22.9% involved type IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. On average, graduating vascular surgery trainees performed 23.1 OARs before graduation (range, 19-26). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the documented national trend of decreased OAR, our institute continues to see increased OAR relative to EVAR and FEVAR. Moreover, we theorized that the preservation of OAR volume in our program and other similar institutions might offer a practical solution to the challenge of addressing vascular surgery training in aortic surgery by OAR, EVAR, and FEVAR. Inclusive discussions at the national and international levels are needed to reach consensus regarding the future of vascular surgery training and key issues, such as additional, mandatory, subspecialized training in OAR and FEVAR for both residents and fellows who wish to receive certification in OAR; creation of centers of excellence for open aortic surgery that would centralize OAR and direct trainees to those centers for their needed training; and possibly development of new training strategies whereby single cases can be shared among trainees with alternating roles as exposure and closure vs repair.