Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis
Published on: January 7, 2019
The Impact of Surgeon Experience-Consultant Versus Supervised Trainees After Elective Infrarenal EVAR: Short-term to
Tiago F Ribeiro1, Helena Fidalgo1, Rita Soares Ferreira1,2
1Angiology and Vascular Surgery Department, Hospital de Santa Marta, Unidade Local de Saúde São José, Lisbon, Portugal.
Introduction:
Vascular trainees are required to have a comprehensive training program, encompassing the completion of clinical, surgical, and research tasks. To fulfill their surgical abilities and performance, sufficient supervised operating time is mandatory. After open vascular procedures, it has been observed that trainee involvement does not lead to detrimental outcomes. On the contrary, its impact during endovascular procedures, which require distinct technical skills, is scarcely reported. The authors aim to analyze the impact of primary operator experience on the outcomes of elective infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) performed within a teaching institution over a 14-year period.
Methods:
This is a single-center, retrospective, comparative study. All consecutive patients submitted to elective EVAR (2011-2023) were considered. Two groups were defined: supervised trainee (ST) and consultant (C), according to the experience of the primary operator. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day major adverse events (MAEs). The secondary outcomes were contrast usage, operative time, bleeding, length of stay (LOS), return to operating room (OR), and freedom from aortic-related interventions up to 2 years.
Results:
Overall, 507 patients were included (62.1% ST vs 32.5% C). Seventy-two MAEs occurred in 8.1%, with no differences across groups (7.0% ST vs 9.9% C, p=0.31, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.46-1.91 for ST-performed procedures), even when MAE components were depicted individually. After adjustment for confounders, no significant differences were found in contrast usage ≥120 mL (aOR=0.89, 95% CI=0.50-1.56), operative time ≥160 minutes (aOR=0.73, 95% CI=0.45-0.18), bleeding (aOR=1.13, 95% CI=0.60-2.12), intensive care unit admission (aOR=0.68, 95% CI=0.40-1.17), prolonged LOS (aOR=0.93, 95% CI=0.60-1.43), return to OR (aOR=0.91, 95% CI=0.37-2.20), and mid-term freedom from aortic-related interventions (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1.39, 95% CI=0.69-2.79).
Conclusion:
In carefully selected cases, elective EVAR performed by supervised trainees seems as safe and effective at mid-term as operations performed by consultants. These findings may have important implications for training programs. Further studies to confirm and clarify our findings are required.Clinical ImpactIn carefully selected cases, elective EVAR performed by supervised trainees seems safe, when compared to operations performed by consultants. Short-term major adverse events, contrast usage, operative time, bleeding, secondary interventions and length of stay appear similar. Mid-term freedom-from aortic interventions is comparable. These findings may have important implications for vascular training programs.
