Vascular Surgery FUTURE

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

GMO2003

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
19
Endovascular surgery is a term we hear alot in the medical community. In the area of PVD who currenty owns this domain and in the future will benefit from the projected exponential growth of its need?

Vascular surgery has always interested me. The recent changes made by the ABS and SVS to a 3 + 3 program make it even more enticing. Does anybody have any opinions on this? I agree that it makes sense due to the increasing need in the near future. However, will not doing the prerequisite general surgery make you a less well rounded and competant surgeon overall? Also, how much endovascular training to you get in a typical vascular surgery fellowship 😕
 
going from a 5+2 model to a 3+3 seems like a good way to go. one fewer year, but the potential for tons more focused vascular training with less unnecessary GI and breast cases. I doubt it would make you a "less competent surgeon" overall since the total time in training is just one year less.
 
How does the referral pathway work...are vascular cases directly referred to vascular surgeons or do the pesky cardiologists 🙄 get in the way? Is treatment of PVD a team approach with cards, rads, and vascular surgery..who ultimately owns the patient? perhaps the good Dr. Cox can chime in 😍 😉
 
GMO2003 said:
How does the referral pathway work...are vascular cases directly referred to vascular surgeons or do the pesky cardiologists 🙄 get in the way? Is treatment of PVD a team approach with cards, rads, and vascular surgery..who ultimately owns the patient? perhaps the good Dr. Cox can chime in 😍 😉

Referral patterns can vary geographically or even within the same zip code. Treatment of vascular disease can be handled, albeit in different ways, by family practitioners, internists, cardiologists, vascular, general and trauma surgeons. Surgical/procedural management obviously is generally referred to those that practice this on a routine basis (ie, vascular or general surgeons). I personally have not seen cardiologists referred patients that would be better treated by a surgeon, especially for peripheral or abdominal vascular problems. Any PCP can prescribe some Trental.

The choice of surgical specialist may be up to the referring physician, availability and patient. For example, patient with an expanding AAA goes to see his PCP in a smallish town without a vascular specialist. You know the local general surgeon has an interest in vascular disease and has treated these cases, effectively, in the past. Or maybe you went to medical school or belong to the country club with the local surgeon. You refer this patient to said local general surgeon.

Same patient but you do not feel the surgeon in town has the skills to effectively treat your patient. However, there is a university hospital two hours away with vascular surgeons on staff. You refer your patient there. He is seen in the vascular clinic and the decision is made that the patient would be a good candidate for an endovascular repair. The surgeon contacts the interventional radiologists and the two arrange their schedule to treat your patient.

Same patient but not a candidate for endovascular repair or patient not so sure about "newfangled" treatment. Patient does not want to travel or ask his family to do so. He requests to see surgeon in town and you arrange an appointment for him. Patient undergoes surgery locally.

Patient is a veteran. You see him in your primary care clinic at the local VA hospital. When you find his AAA on exam, you order a CT and send him to see the surgeons. The surgeon tells the patient that while he has done a AAA repair, he doesn't do them often and would refer the patient to an out of state VA which routinely does these, having vascular surgeons on staff. The transport is arranged and the patient gets his repair done.

Same patient but one with good extra insurance coverage. Patient inquires as to whether or not he can elect to have surgery locally with a private vascular surgeon. He asks you for a referral, and since this is the patient's preference and you know a good vascular surgeon, you are happy to help him.

Same patient but like other above, he takes care of his invalid wife and does not want to travel out of state for his repair. You insist that you do not feel comfortable repairing this man's AAA, and being the typical veteran, he argues with you, refuses to go and ends up in the emergency room 14 months later with a rupture.

Same patient, but you agree to do the repair. It has been awhile but you know the basics and the patient is treated and discharged home in good condition.

Different patient with a traumatic arterial injury who for some reason, comes to your office first. You live in a city with both trauma and vascular surgeons. The vascular surgeon oncall that day is an arrogant jerk and once hit on your wife at a hospital Christmas party. You send the patient to the local trauma center and suggest that his repair be done by one of the trauma surgeons.

Same patient but trauma surgeon "hates" peripheral vascular surgery and refers your patient to vascular surgeon on call.

And so on...

the point is that in any community there will be established referral patterns. As noted above, some of these are based on availability (is there a vascular surgeon in town?), good old boy network (ie, "I have not idea if Fred is a good surgeon, but boy we had some fun downing those beers in college so I'm sure he'll take good care of the patients I refer to him"), desire for connections (ie, "If I refer my vascular patients to Surgeon X, he in turn will give me...a) referrals for patients who need a primary care physician; b) a "finders fee"; c) a sponsorship for membership at the local exclusive gold club; etc, habit (ie, always refer patients to same surgeon, despite new vascular surgeon in town), etc.

If you're the only game in town, you need only to make your name and abilities known and generally you'll get patients and referrals for the local physicians, including cardiologists. You may come across some who prefer sticking to their referral patterns (ie, "I always send my patients to Hopkins for treatment"), but you may make some in-roads by offering good service and being a nice guy to work with who will see referred patients in a timely manner.

If you're a vascular surgeon in a town with multiple general surgeons who while not Vascular fellowship trained, have an interest in the field, and do lots of these procedures, and there are also interventional radiologists who also do a fair bit, then your ability to get referrals, will be a bit more difficult.

Since i have little information about the status of Vascular surgery and its practice patterns, this is a bit speculative and I don't know how much the cardiologists are doing. Our Vascular surgeons seem pretty busy. However, the above thoughts on referral patterns are essentially true for most any field. As long as you have a patient base and don't set your practice up in a saturated market (ie, trying to do Plastics in So Cal), then you should find enough cases to keep you busy.
 
thanks Dr. Cox...very informative as always...all we need now is for RIO to spout his wisdom and celiac plexus to call someone a pu$$y and this thread will have come full circle....on a serious note..what's the comp like for vascular and also is it moving toward more minimally invasive procedures..ie endovascular surgery??
 
GMO2003 said:
thanks Dr. Cox...very informative as always...all we need now is for RIO to spout his wisdom and celiac plexus to call someone a pu$$y and this thread will have come full circle....on a serious note..what's the comp like for vascular and also is it moving toward more minimally invasive procedures..ie endovascular surgery??

I'm also curious about the future of vascular surgery. I loved everything about the open procedures I've seen, but the endovascular stuff seemed...well, a little boring. any thoughts?
 
Different strokes for different strokes! The endo-stuff is as interesting to me as the open stuff.

I was talking to a vascular surgeon who trained in the mid 80's and was one of the first ones who was taught the endo stuff and how when he was learning he thought it was worthless cuz a lot of it was angiography and a bit of baloon plasty. Those procedures took up so little of his case load he almost considered dropping it. His mentor presudaded him form dropping it and he kept doing it despited some seriouse turf battles from the IR guys. But he says now endo procedures take up more then 1/2 his practice and any hospital that wants to have a vascular program needs to have vascular surgeons who are endo trained.

I was also at a national meeting in Oct where I sat it on some of the vascular confrences. They 99% of the people were presenting on new endo procedures or on how to keep vascualr medicine and Int Cards from stenting outside the heart. The impression that I'm getting is Vascular Surgery is evolveing to a point where you a physican who medically, endovascularly, and surgically manage your vascular pts.

njbmd might have some better insight, as he/she is a PGY3 who is actively pursueing vascular surgery.
 
The Vascular guys at my place are very interested in endo cases. They're doing more carotid stents than CEAs. I see lots of Aneurex grafts on the schedule. There's a bit of a turf war here. IR tries to get into the AAA and PVD (CFA, SFA, distal LE stuff), but they seem to have a hard time getting the business. There's a super-powerful cardiology group in town that does tons of endovascular (AAAs, carotids, mesenteric stuff, CFA, SFA, distals). Given that there are three separate entities who want to do this stuff, there's some bad blood between them. When the cardiologists get themselves into trouble, they call CTVS for help, since most of those guys will do open peripheral vascular cases.

Endovascular is pretty cool, but you still have to be available for the ruptured AAAs and all sorts of other messes. I love vascular cases (no poop), but I can't take the headache of thoses super-sick patients.
 
I’m currently doing some research in traditional vs modern treatments for PVD because I’m interested in perusing a career in vascular surgery (I think it rocks). This project has lasted for a couple months now and I spend a lot of time receiving teaching from radiologists and surgeons. Two things I noticed were…

1) The surgeons are always busy! Even with Rads taking some of their cases off their hands, there’s still plenty of work to do.
2) Endovascular therapy isn’t for everyone with PVD and a lot of patient end up getting bypass grafts even after angioplasty with stenting. Success rates below the femorals aren’t that great. And interventional radiologists have other things to do aswell, not just vascular stuff.

I was once worried about the “turf wars” and it eventually leading to my unemployment as a vascular surgeon but now I’ve realized that the two fields aren’t really competing with each other, it’s just harmonious co-operative management.
Don’t really know how cardiology fits into the whole peripheral vascular thingy though.
 
johnny_blaze said:
I’m currently doing some research in traditional vs modern treatments for PVD because I’m interested in perusing a career in vascular surgery (I think it rocks). This project has lasted for a couple months now and I spend a lot of time receiving teaching from radiologists and surgeons. Two things I noticed were…

1) The surgeons are always busy! Even with Rads taking some of their cases off their hands, there’s still plenty of work to do.
2) Endovascular therapy isn’t for everyone with PVD and a lot of patient end up getting bypass grafts even after angioplasty with stenting. Success rates below the femorals aren’t that great. And interventional radiologists have other things to do aswell, not just vascular stuff.

I was once worried about the “turf wars” and it eventually leading to my unemployment as a vascular surgeon but now I’ve realized that the two fields aren’t really competing with each other, it’s just harmonious co-operative management.
Don’t really know how cardiology fits into the whole peripheral vascular thingy though.

collaboration and mutual respect sounds good to me...whatever is good for the patient is what ultimately matters right...nonetheless, I would hate to see vascular go by the way side like CTS in lieu of cards coming in and basically cleaning house leaving the complacent cardiac surgeon resting on his/her laurels... 👎
 
Wow... another innovation of radiology being stolen.

Dotter inventer endovascular catheter based intervention, a radiologist.

Endovascular procedures were pioneered by radiologist.

Now they are being taken by vascular surgeons and cardiologists for financial gain.

I suspect that the unbelievable field of IR as we know it, full of innovative and creative people with great ideas... will soon be dead.
 
Looking at Dr. Cox's post:

Do general surgeons really need to go and do a year or two of vascular? Is this just necessary if you're going to a metropolitan area to groove your niche? I know in the future the vascular societies are attempting to keep the general surgeons from doing any vascular but at this juncture, one or two years of vascular fellowship seems unnecessary for many general surgeons interested in vascular.

Just asking the question.
 
I do research under a top interventional radiologist and this is what i have heard from him over and over again: there is not much cooperation among IR and interventional cardiologist. There is a big turf war going on between these two fields and cardiology usually comes out as a winner ( so they get to do more procedures than IR). There was a presentation at last year's RSNA ( Radiology Society of North American) meeting in chicago on this issue and the data which was presented at the presentation basically said that the percent increase in the number of PVD procedures being done by vasuclar surgeons is much more than other fields and IR had a negative growth rate ( I don't remember the numbers from the top of my head).

You can read this article for more information:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/health/columns/strongmedicine/n_9311/

just my 2 cents.
 
Radiology, especially interventional, is full of very bright and creative people.

However, the field suffers due to the following:

1. Most go into it thinking of it as a "lifestyle" field... although it no longer is. IR goes against this train of thought.

2. Rads tend to select from the "patient phobic" group of med students, again not good for IR.

3. Radiologist do not control patients, and thus if a cardiologist want to do "drive by" renal stenting on a coronary cath patient, there is no one to stop him. IR is trying to become more clinical, although this goes against the culture of radiology.

4. Radiologists are generally passive folks, not type-A greedy bastards like the cardiologists.

Having said all that IR is one of the most exciting fields in modern medicine, and despite the turf battles continues to innovate... just look at UAE and the new oncology stuff.

Vascular stuff will soon be lost to VS and cardiology. I find it difficult to blame vascular surgeons, because if they didn't get involved in endovascular stuff the field would all but evaporate in the future. However, cardiologists are just a bunch of greedy bastards who cannot innovate and must rely on stealing others innovations.

We are the masters of imaging, however, and MRA and CTA will remain within IR.
 
RADRULES said:
We are the masters of imaging, however, and MRA and CTA will remain within IR.

I doubt it. As vascular imaging gets more democratized you going to have the Surgeons and Cardiologist ask why they would get another physician to read & bill for a study that they themselves are able to interpret and bill for. Witness the proliferation of imaging machines in orthopedists and hand surgeons' centers and the commonplace staffing of the non-invasive vascular lab studies in many most hospitals by vascular surgeons
 
droliver said:
I doubt it. As vascular imaging gets more democratized you going to have the Surgeons and Cardiologist ask why they would get another physician to read & bill for a study that they themselves are able to interpret and bill for. Witness the proliferation of imaging machines in orthopedists and hand surgeons' centers and the commonplace staffing of the non-invasive vascular lab studies in many most hospitals by vascular surgeons

It is not the surgeons who developed the advancement in MRA or CTA. They really have no idea of the sequences, artifacts, and various aspects of MRA. This will result in poorer care. And they never look at the rest of the study (how about the heptama or renal cell on that MRA that the surgeon didn't even look for, its not as rare as you'd think). Do you think that good quality MRA just happens. It has taken years of work by radiologists and medical physicists to improve and continue to refine MRAs. Often the radiologist monitors a study in order to optimize it. Is the surgeon going to do this from the OR? How about all of the rest of the body that is included on CTA? Are surgeons ready to be responsible for that as well. It takes time to look at everything and to dictate a report for the record. Its quite different from just looking at it for a focal finding. Its poor care. I am not trying to operate because I realize I am not trained enough to do the best job. I wish other specialists would realize the same.
 
Whisker Barrel Cortex said:
It is not the surgeons who developed the advancement in MRA or CTA. They really have no idea of the sequences, artifacts, and various aspects of MRA. This will result in poorer care. And they never look at the rest of the study (how about the heptama or renal cell on that MRA that the surgeon didn't even look for, its not as rare as you'd think). Do you think that good quality MRA just happens. It has taken years of work by radiologists and medical physicists to improve and continue to refine MRAs. Often the radiologist monitors a study in order to optimize it. Is the surgeon going to do this from the OR? How about all of the rest of the body that is included on CTA? Are surgeons ready to be responsible for that as well. It takes time to look at everything and to dictate a report for the record. Its quite different from just looking at it for a focal finding. Its poor care. I am not trying to operate because I realize I am not trained enough to do the best job. I wish other specialists would realize the same.

Its disgusting, in private practice, NOW, cardiologists are reading CTAs of just the heart. The vendors are packaging software that deletes the FOV to include only the heart and permanently deletes the lung and rest of the mediastinum from the record. Its not fair to the patient, because the patient gets the same wonking dose of radiation for 'just the heart' as he would if the entire chest was radiographed.
 
Whisker Barrel Cortex said:
How about all of the rest of the body that is included on CTA?



I think that argument is a distractor unless you feel that random non-screening imaging studies improve the quality of health care on a systems basis. They don't - as can be seen with routine screening mammograms in most women in their 30-40's or the fad of non-contrasted whole body imaging centers that proliferated in radiology in recent years. With rare exception in aysmpotomatic populations, it (random screening, which is what you'd be getting by demanding routine formal reads on these vascaulr imaging studies) generates costs without benefit & in fact can cause increases in morbidity from the work-up. I think a better argument is that you could say that there are certain patients in these vasular patient groups who might have risk factors for lung CA who may (and I think this is still being sorted out) benefit from more formalized chest imaging protacols if they haven't had a recent CXR. Most of the patients would seem to be random screenings to me if you insist on global v. focused exams.

Its been clearly established I think that non-radiologists can learn to accurately interpret imaging studies of multiple modalities that they they treat clinically (ultrasound, plain xrays, fluorsocopy, angiography, CT/MR) in fields ranging from OBGYN to Plastic Surgery. While I sympathize with your arguments, just don't see how radiology is going to turn back the clock on vascular imaging to maintain sole possession of this area. For something to change Radiology would need more and better data re. clinical outcomes (not just cost) to argue to the hospitals, 3rd party payers, and the feds that Vascular Surgeons, Cardiologists, & even Neurology are causing additional morbidity by their practices. I don't know that you could realistically study that & thus I don't think much will happen about stopping the changes already happening.
 
Cardiology doing endovascular AORTAS??? This is CRAZY!!


I'd like to see a vascular surgeon stent a LAD just to see the response
 
droliver said:
I think that argument is a distractor unless you feel that random non-screening imaging studies improve the quality of health care on a systems basis. They don't - as can be seen with routine screening mammograms in most women in their 30-40's or the fad of non-contrasted whole body imaging centers that proliferated in radiology in recent years. With rare exception in aysmpotomatic populations, it (random screening, which is what you'd be getting by demanding routine formal reads on these vascaulr imaging studies) generates costs without benefit & in fact can cause increases in morbidity from the work-up. I think a better argument is that you could say that there are certain patients in these vasular patient groups who might have risk factors for lung CA who may (and I think this is still being sorted out) benefit from more formalized chest imaging protacols if they haven't had a recent CXR. Most of the patients would seem to be random screenings to me if you insist on global v. focused exams.

Its been clearly established I think that non-radiologists can learn to accurately interpret imaging studies of multiple modalities that they they treat clinically (ultrasound, plain xrays, fluorsocopy, angiography, CT/MR) in fields ranging from OBGYN to Plastic Surgery. While I sympathize with your arguments, just don't see how radiology is going to turn back the clock on vascular imaging to maintain sole possession of this area. For something to change Radiology would need more and better data re. clinical outcomes (not just cost) to argue to the hospitals, 3rd party payers, and the feds that Vascular Surgeons, Cardiologists, & even Neurology are causing additional morbidity by their practices. I don't know that you could realistically study that & thus I don't think much will happen about stopping the changes already happening.

Actually, many studies have shown that non-radiologists are NOT as good as intepreting imaging. Studies on more advanced imaging such as CT and MRI have not been performed. From my anecdotal experience going over MRA studies (and many others) with surgery residents and attendings, they are NOT nearly as good as interpreting imaging as they imagine themselves to be. The same is true of abdominal CT. Correctly and completely interpreting imaging takes time. If a vascular surgeon is to do this, he/she must dictate a full report for the record, not just remark in a clinic note about the major findings. I doubt many have the time or inclination to do this.

In terms of the monetary issues, many studies have shown that clinicians order anywhere from 2 to 8 times as many imaging studies on the same types of patients when they are self referring as when they are sending a patient to a radiologist. This has not escaped the notice of either major insurers or the goverment. The medicare advisory committee recommended to congress a couple of months ago that limits be placed on who can interpret imaging and on self-referral. This doesn't mean that only radiologists can interpret, but that those who intend to perform a primary interpretation need some level of certification. We'll see how this plays out on Capitol Hill. (by the way, I have sources and references for all of the above information if you would like them).

Studies on clinically signicant ancillary findings have been performed on cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, and virtual colonoscopy. These have shown a rate of clinically significant unexpected ancillary findings of 10-15%. These include findings such as lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma, lung cancer, liver metastases, hydronephrosis, renal calculi, lytic bone mets, adrenal masses, and others. There were also many benign lesions that were seen incidentally that the radiologist, due to the fact that they actually received training in imaging, could characterize as benign and not requiring follow-up.

Do not let you egos get in the way of good patient care.
 
I have at least 5 renal masses in my teaching file which were picked up on MRA. This may not matter to the clinician unless it was his or her mother or father.

What clinicians fail to understand is that when they look at a CT of the belly for appendicitis, that is all they look for. Most of the time they have a radiologist there showing them the appendix. Thus, after a surgery residency, most of them can pick out a hot appendix... this is not rocket science. However, what the radiologist does is far more thorough... going through every study on several different window settings and planes and putting a full report on paper in the medical chart. A legal interpretation taking all the liability for that study.

There is a big difference between these two.

The pretty MRAs you may see as you walk by the rads department has a big fat source sequence included, with a whole lot of info on it.
 
droliver said:
I doubt it. As vascular imaging gets more democratized you going to have the Surgeons and Cardiologist ask why they would get another physician to read & bill for a study that they themselves are able to interpret and bill for. Witness the proliferation of imaging machines in orthopedists and hand surgeons' centers and the commonplace staffing of the non-invasive vascular lab studies in many most hospitals by vascular surgeons


I think surgeons reading films is sub-optimal medical care, as they don't have any formal training on reading films, compared to a radiologist with 4-5 years of training plus the experience that comes with reading films all day, every day. This is obvious, just as you wouldn't want a dermatologist performing a face-lift on you -- they are obviously lacking in surgical training compared to a PRS. But, this is the unfortunate direction these days, as doctors are trying to squeeze out every dollar possible in these days of decreasing compensation. This is especially prevalent in areas where doctors make relatively little, such as California and the Northeast. You have dermatologists doing liposuction, family practitioners doing botox and chemical peels, optometrists doing lasik, nurses doing anesthesia, cardiologists doing endovascular AAA's, 'interventional' nephrologists doing hemodialysis graft maintenence, and the list goes on and on. Pretty much every field is being encroached upon by -someone-. If you live in one of these dareas, the only thing you can do is either accept a loss of income/work, innovate within your field, encroach on other specialties, or move to the South or Midwest where medicine is still semi-pristine (at least for a few more decades).
 
The_Id said:
I think surgeons reading films is sub-optimal medical care, as they don't have any formal training on reading films, .

Surgeons & medicine subspecialties of all fields interpret images everyday routinely and in point of fact most of these specialties have part of their training formally dedicated to learning to read specific studies, so that's an ignorant statement to me.

The gist of the discussion we've been having is whether or not 1) a CT or MR angiogram can be reliably interpreted without a radiologist & 2) do these studies need to be reviewed by radiologists for non-vascular pathology in patients who don't neccessarily have symptoms or risk factors for other diseases?

I think the answer to number 1 is clearly yes, as witnessed by the success with almost every other imaging modality in practice. If a vascular surgeon can read an angiogram and a duplex/doppler, I don't understand why its a stretch to think that reading CTA/MRA's isn't the logical progression.

I think the answer to #2 is I don't know. Personally I think I'd want my whole study read out by a radiologist for other path, I just don't know that this makes sense on a systems level in unselected patients. You're going to get into a situation where the 3rd party payer for these studies is not going to pay for 2 sets of reads on these films (the angiogram + the general read). I suspect that eventually you will see more cardiologists and surgeons reading their own MRA/CTA (cardiology is already well into this BTW) with a screening process for other risk factors that may trigger reading the rest of the image by a radiologist. Otherwise the low-risk patient may have to pay out of pocket to get image read.
 
Whisker Barrel Cortex said:
Actually, many studies have shown that non-radiologists are NOT as good as intepreting imaging. Studies on more advanced imaging such as CT and MRI have not been performed.

Can you specify what imaging modalities?

What I think is already happening is that as imaging technology evolves and the actual images become sharper, clearer, more detailed, etc... the need for a trained interpreter, ie. radiologist, will diminish somewhat.

in the past, "imaging" was less sophisticated, and an untrained eye might have had more dificulty reading all the aunt minnies in a film. now, we have things like fine cut ct 3d recons for example, and the definition and resolution of the images are so good that i think most physicians could read them much better than their counterparts of the past may have read a low res 1st gen ct.

as the technology evolves, i think that specialists will have an easier time reading these studies, and reduce the need for the radiologist's interpretation. this is already happening to some extent (as has already been discussed), and the trend will probably continue to an even greater extent.
 
Are you kidding me??

The demand for radiologists has never been higher in history... you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Beyond that, just because the pictures are better does not mean you know what you are looking at.
 
droliver said:
Surgeons & medicine subspecialties of all fields interpret images everyday routinely and in point of fact most of these specialties have part of their training formally dedicated to learning to read specific studies, so that's an ignorant statement to me.

I didn't say that film reading by non-radiologists is not happening in the US... I think we are all well aware of that fact. Also, I didn't say that surgeons/fleas being the sole interpreter of films is unacceptable or even inadequate... I said it is suboptimal, and that is just my opinion.

I'm sure that plenty of non-radiologists can do adequate jobs (i.e. get the gist of what is going on with a few misinterpretations here and there), but it is obviously not optimal medical care. Although I have (and I'm sure that you have also) read tons of preop CXR's, and can find major preop pulmonary issues like edema, effusions, etc, I'm not so good at finding nodules and assessing other lung pathologies that warrant workup (that would be found by a trained radiologist). A dermatologist can probably do an adequate job performing liposuction, but do you think this is really optimal, considering that they haven't had any 'true' surgical training? Do you think that they can deal with complications as 'optimally', as a PRS? You, PRS-in-training, please tell me what you think.
 
The_Id said:
I didn't say that film reading by non-radiologists is not happening in the US... I think we are all well aware of that fact. Also, I didn't say that surgeons/fleas being the sole interpreter of films is unacceptable or even inadequate... I said it is suboptimal, and that is just my opinion.

I'm not sure that say a hand surgeon reading a hand xray, an OBGYN reading a transvaginal or fetal U/S, a cardiologist reading a cath angio or ECHO, or a vascular surgeon reading an angiogram is by any stretch of the imagination suboptimal . All of these modalities were incorporated into practice by these specialties as the technology matured. To think that narrowly focused CTA or MRA interpretation is some privledged technology that no one else can master is silly. The studies we've been refering to will still have the oppurtunity to read out by a radiologist, they just will not get paid for doing it by 3rd party payers if someone else already has submitted a bill for the angiography portion. That might not even be bad if there becomes a market for those studies getting read by radiologists with the patient paying out of pocket, as again these are more akin to the body-scan random screenings for path then indicated exams for diagnosis of non-vascular related things.

I think your analogy with Dermatologists and liposuction is flawed as your now talking about a active procedural versus a static diagnostic skill. Clearly, Dermatologists have a pretty long & contributory history in the field of liposuction. I think in general, they are undertrained to perform it & are limited in what they can do volume-wise by the lack of credentials for hospital privledges, but at this point you can't realistically put the horse back into the barn about their ability to perform it
 
droliver said:
I'm not sure that say a hand surgeon reading a hand xray, an OBGYN reading a transvaginal or fetal U/S, a cardiologist reading a cath angio or ECHO, or a vascular surgeon reading an angiogram is by any stretch of the imagination suboptimal . All of these modalities were incorporated into practice by these specialties as the technology matured. To think that narrowly focused CTA or MRA interpretation is some privledged technology that no one else can master is silly. The studies we've been refering to will still have the oppurtunity to read out by a radiologist, they just will not get paid for doing it by 3rd party payers if someone else already has submitted a bill for the angiography portion. That might not even be bad if there becomes a market for those studies getting read by radiologists with the patient paying out of pocket, as again these are more akin to the body-scan random screenings for path then indicated exams for diagnosis of non-vascular related things.

I think your analogy with Dermatologists and liposuction is flawed as your now talking about a active procedural versus a static diagnostic skill. Clearly, Dermatologists have a pretty long & contributory history in the field of liposuction. I think in general, they are undertrained to perform it & are limited in what they can do volume-wise by the lack of credentials for hospital privledges, but at this point you can't realistically put the horse back into the barn about their ability to perform it


The similarity you indicate to whole body screening CT has some merit, but is inaccurate. Those studies have no real indication. Sure, the CT angio and MR angio are performed primary for the angiogram portion. However, they do include the rest of the body. Studies have shown approximately 10-15% clinically significant ancillary findings in virtual colonoscopy. This can easily be extrapolated to abdomen CTA or MRA. If you are willing to miss these findings, so be it.

Basically, the radiologist can interpret the whole study and the vascular surgeons can interpret the reconstructed images (do you even have any idea what the protocols are for MRA? Potential artifacts? How to get better images when there are limitations? Do you think those studies get done in a vacuum? They are often tailored and tweaked by the radiologist to get an optimal study). So, in order to make an extra buck, the vascular surgeon is provide a limited evaluation of the study when one person, the radiologist, could have done the full interpretation. If you think the defense that "I was only interpreting the angio and gave the patient the option of getting a radiologist to read it" will fly, you are sorely mistaken. If you interpret a study with no radiology back-up, you are taking responsibility for the whole study. Radiologists that miss signficant findings on the corner shots of these studies are held responsible if the patient has a poor outcome due to it. What makes you think that someone less trained in imaging will be immune?
 
i think you guys need to define "read"...

1) "reading" a film looking for a specific process within your specialty (ie: when I "read" CTs/CXRs in the SICU)

2) "reading" a film by a radiologist who is held liable for ALL findings/intricacies

There have been a number of cases where surgeons were sued for missing important findings (ie: the thoracic surgeon who looked at a cxr after removing a foreign body and not recognizing a suspicious mass - pt. came back 2 years later w/ metastatic lung ca - the hospital settled immediately)

And while most surgeons are skilled at reading films as they pertain to their field - whenever it is mildly out of the ordinary they make sure there is a full radiology read....

so can anybody "read" films??? sure.... should a radiologist "read" every film - absolutely, unless you want the hospital to settle over and over again.
 
droliver said:
I think your analogy with Dermatologists and liposuction is flawed as your now talking about a active procedural versus a static diagnostic skill. Clearly, Dermatologists have a pretty long & contributory history in the field of liposuction. I think in general, they are undertrained to perform it & are limited in what they can do volume-wise by the lack of credentials for hospital privledges, but at this point you can't realistically put the horse back into the barn about their ability to perform it

Hmm... "active procedural versus a static diagnostic skill"?? No offense, but just think about what you are saying. They are both acquired skills that are developed through didactic education and experience.

"You can't put the horse back into the barn about their ability to perform it"?? Again, please just think about what you are saying... As I'm sure you realize, it is 100% irrelevant who has contributed to the development of a procedure/operation. It is all about who or what produces the best results, and yes, you can indeed compare results (remind me, what do 80% of clinical trials do?)

As I reiterate for the second time, please understand, I am not saying who should and should not be allowed to do certain things, I am merely commenting on what I believe to be suboptimal medical care.
 
Top