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. 相似文献
导致血不利的原因一是不足,即由于气、血、津、液等物质的缺乏致无源行血;一是不通,即水、湿、痰、饮、瘀、食积、火郁、内风、外伤等病理因素阻滞,致血行不畅。血瘀经脉之内,则水亦瘀积脉中,致脉络胀满,形成水肿。乳腺癌术后患者,金刃本已损伤血脉,术后的放疗、化疗又属祛邪之法,故机体元气受损,气虚无力行血,血运行不畅,导致患侧上肢水肿。故治疗乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿时,应当血水同治,即活血利水之法要贯穿始终。先病血而后病水者,可以活血化瘀为主,利水为辅;先病水后病血者,则以利水消肿为主,酌加活血养血之品。但需要注意的是:①临证时切不可拘泥于单纯的活血利水法,而忽视乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿(breast cancer related lymphedema,BCRL)患者机体本身的状况。②临证勿忽视五脏与血、水的关系,以及肺、脾、肾、三焦与水肿的内在关系。③可多种方法联合运用,审证求因,标本同治。BCRL术后宜补气活血,通脉利水;术后兼化疗者可疏肝健脾、利水消肿;早期可在活血利水基础上,侧重利湿消肿,后期多湿聚为痰,治疗侧重化痰软坚。 相似文献
There is an increasing incidence of elderly patients requiring emergency laparotomy. Our study compares the outcomes of elderly patients undergoing emergency laparotomy against the outcomes of non-elderly patients.
Methodology
Patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between 2015 and 2017 from the National University Hospital, Singapore, were included. Apart from demographic data, indication of surgery and surgical procedure performed were collected. Prospectively collected nutritional scores were evaluated. Outcome measures included duration of surgery, length of ICU and total hospital stay, post-operative complications, and mortality indices. We performed multivariate Cox regression analysis to determine the contribution of various risk factors towards overall survival following emergency laparotomy.
Results
A total of 170 emergency laparotomies were performed. Compared to non-elderly patients, elderly patients had a significantly longer mean stay in hospital (31.5 vs. 18.6 days, p = 0.006) and mean stay in ICU (13.1 vs. 5.3 days, p = 0.003). More elderly patients suffered from post-laparotomy complications compared with non-elderly patients (65.8% vs. 37.4%, p < 0.001). 30-day mortality (31.5% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.019) and 1-year mortality (27.9% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.023) were higher in elderly patients compared with non-elderly patients. Interestingly, there was no statistically significant difference between elderly and non-elderly groups in both the global 3-MinNS as well as the global SGA nutritional scores. ASA status (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.05–6.45, p = 0.038) was an independent risk factor for decreased survival following emergency laparotomy. Notably, while age ≥ 65 demonstrated a significant correlation with survival on univariate analysis (HR 1.03 (1.01–1.05), p = 0.003), this effect was lost following multivariate regression (HR 1.01 (0.453–2.23), p = 0.989).
Conclusion
Elderly patients suffer worse morbidity and mortality following emergency laparotomy. This is likely contributed by comorbidities resulting in higher ASA status.