Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 23, 2026
Simulator Training for Endovascular Neurosurgery
Published on: May 6, 2020
The Value of Carotid Endarterectomy as a Learning Tool for Trainees
Laura Maria Cacioppa1, Rodolfo Pini1, Matteo Longhi1
1Vascular Surgery Unit, Dipartimento di Medicina Specialistica Diagnostica e Sperimentale (DIMES), Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Background:
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) intervention needs a specific training and a sufficient learning curve to obtain optimal results in terms of outcome. A formative program was settled up in a single academic center to optimize training of standard CEA procedures. This study aims to evaluate the 11-year results of the teaching CEA program.
Methods:
The trainees CEA teaching program is carried on during the 5-year vascular surgery residency period, and it is stratified as follows: learning theory and intervention assistance (minimum 50 procedures per year) in the first and second residency year; performing CEA as second operator in the third and fourth residency year (minimum 50 procedures per year); CEA execution as first operator with attending supervision in the last residency year. All CEA procedures from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively collected and the 30-day results were compared according to the expertise of the first operator: experienced vascular surgeons (EVSs) versus trainees. All CEA procedures were performed in general anesthesia, with routine shunting and patching.
Results:
In the study period, 1,379 (361 [26.2%] symptomatic; 1,018 [73.8%] asymptomatic) CEAs were performed. Trainees performed 199 (14.4%) CEAs as first operator. Patients submitted to CEA by trainees were similar in terms of preoperative clinical characteristics except for the patients' age (trainees 72.4 years versus EVS 70.8 years, P = 0.02) and smoking history (trainees 30.7% versus EVS 24.1%, P = 0.04). The 30-day complication rates were similar in CEA performed by trainees versus EVS: stroke 0.5% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.5; death 0.0% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.6; stroke/death 0.5% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.24; hematoma 3.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.48; and cranial nerve injury 9.0% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.47, respectively. The intervention time was significantly longer in CEAs performed by trainees compared with EVS: 104 ± 1.9 min versus 98 ± 1.0 min, P = 0.02.
Conclusions:
With a defined CEA teaching program, trainees can obtain results similar to those of more experienced surgeons in terms of clinical outcome at the price of an increased intervention time.
