What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.     

Systemic treatments in paediatric psoriasis: a systematic evidence‐based update

In 2008, a systematic review revealed that evidence‐based data on efficacy and safety of treatments in paediatric psoriasis are scarce and with low level of evidence. In recent years, publications on this topic have increased exponentially. To present a systematic, evidence‐based update on the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in paediatric psoriasis and to provide treatment recommendations, an update of the previous review was performed. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register were searched between January 2007 and March 2014 for all available literature on efficacy and safety of all systemic treatments in paediatric psoriasis. The levels of evidence were determined on the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐based Medicine Levels of Evidence. The newly retrieved evidence was combined with the evidence available in the former review. Fifty‐two studies were included: 36 from the former review, plus 16 new articles. New evidence on induction therapy was mainly available on fumaric acid esters (FAEs), which are shown to be effective in a subgroup of patients. Long‐term (96 weeks) safety and efficacy data on etanercept were found. Prospective studies are scarce. Most conclusions are formulated on studies with low level of evidence. Of the conventional systemic treatments, methotrexate still has the most evidence albeit in a low number of patients and with a low level of evidence. FAEs seem to be effective in a subgroup of patients, with gastro‐intestinal complaints, flushes and temporary shifts in leucocyte counts and liver enzymes being the main side‐effects. Etanercept has still accumulated most evidence of the available systematic treatments, with a large efficacy and reassuring safety profile in a 96‐week follow‐up.