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.     

Pediatric Inpatient Headache Therapy: What is Available

Status migrainosus is defined by the international classification of headache disorders (ICHD) criteria as a debilitating migraine lasting more then 72 hours. The epidemiology of status migrainosus is still unknown in adult and children, and frequently underdiagnosed. Children and adolescents often end up in the emergency room with an intractable headache that failed outpatient therapy. Six to seven percent of these children do not respond to acute infusion therapy and require hospitalization. It is imperative that more aggressive therapy is considered when patients are affected by a severe intractable headache to prevent further disability and returning the child to baseline activity. Multiple therapies are available for adults and children. Studies for acute therapy in the emergency room are available in adults and pediatric groups. Small studies are available for inpatient therapy in children and, along with available therapies for children and adolescents, are described in this review. A review of the literature shows growing evidence regarding the use of dihydroergotamine intravenously once patients are hospitalized. Effectiveness and safety have been proven in the last decades in adults and small studies in the pediatric populations.