User login
Some Cardiac Surgery ‘Firsts’
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
News From the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
Some Cardiac Surgery ‘Firsts’
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
News From the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
Some Cardiac Surgery ‘Firsts’
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Viking Olov Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
News From the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
Some Cardiac Surgery ‘Firsts’
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Gunnar Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
drug names and dosages -
lab test values and their units -
whether nos. are correct and add up, and whether percentages based on those nos. are correct -
citation (e.g., JAMA 2008;299:785-92) -
investigators’ names and affiliations -
all other proper names (e.g., clinical trials; geographic, company, and test names) –..
investigators' conflicts of interest and sponsor of study –
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Gunnar Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
drug names and dosages -
lab test values and their units -
whether nos. are correct and add up, and whether percentages based on those nos. are correct -
citation (e.g., JAMA 2008;299:785-92) -
investigators’ names and affiliations -
all other proper names (e.g., clinical trials; geographic, company, and test names) –..
investigators' conflicts of interest and sponsor of study –
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
Note: The definitions of ‘first’ and ‘successful’ can be contentious in any branch of history.The history of medicine is no exception. The dates and events listed below have at least some legitimate consensus behind them.
1893 First documented successful pericardium repair (Daniel Hale Williams)
1896 First successful heart operation (Ludwig Rehn).
1924 First successful pulmonary embolectomy (Martin Kirshner).
1937 Congenital heart surgery ‘begins’ with ductus ligation procedure (John Streider).
1938 First ductus ligation leading to full recovery (Robert Gross).
1945 Blalock-Taussig operation for ‘blue baby syndrome’ (Alfred Blalock/Helen Taussig).
1946 First anomalous coronary artery repair (Gunnar Biorck/Clarence Crafoord).
1947 First successful pulmonary valvotomy (Thomas Holmes Sellers).
1948 First successful mitral commissurotomy (Charles Bailey).
1952 First successful right-sided heart bypass (Forest Dodrill).
1953 First complete atrioventricular canal using cross-circulation (C. Walton Lillehei).
1954 First Tetralogy of Fallot repair using cardiopulmonary bypass (John Kirklin).
1962 First pulmonary embolectomy using cardiopulmonary bypass (Edward Sharp).
1968 First successful cardiac arrhythmia surgery (Will C. Sealy).
I have checked the following facts in my story: (Please initial each.)
drug names and dosages -
lab test values and their units -
whether nos. are correct and add up, and whether percentages based on those nos. are correct -
citation (e.g., JAMA 2008;299:785-92) -
investigators’ names and affiliations -
all other proper names (e.g., clinical trials; geographic, company, and test names) –..
investigators' conflicts of interest and sponsor of study –
Compiled from the following source:
“History of Cardiac Surgery,” Larry W. Stephenson, in Lawrence H. Cohn, (ed) <[lb]>“Cardiac Surgery in the Adult.”
News From the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
********* UNDERSET 1 LINES *********
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
********* UNDERSET 1 LINES *********
What makes a Cardiothoracic training program great? For many it means that the program “leads” the field in surgical knowledge, blazing a path towards discovery. To others it means the program trains future surgeons well by teaching them how to operate. Still others feel it is a program with a rich history and an esteemed group of surgeons on its board …the list could go on and on. The Joint Council on Thoracic Surgery Education (JCTSE) recently has begun to focus on identifying areas within surgical education that makes a program stand above the rest.
To some, searching for what makes a Cardiothoracic program “great” is purely subjective like a quest for the world’s greatest donut. The goal here is not to form a simple rank list of the most outstanding CT programs; rather, the JCTSE aims to identify traits of programs that support the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s mission to “protect the public by establishing and main
taining high standards in thoracic surgery.” The mere ranking of programs in a neat and orderly line likely does not hold much educational purpose. The identification of “great” traits though, does have purpose and will help deliver specific goals from broad educational principals.
The JCTSE and the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) have recently taken a first step in collecting these traits of greatness by sending out
a preliminary survey to current cardiothoracic (CT) residents. The survey consisted of 50 questions addressing the relative importance of multiple aspects of CT surgery training programs and initial findings varied from the expected to the surprising. Traditional areas of importance such as the reputation of the program, the expectation of trainees functioning as operating surgeon, help in finding employment and a high volume and complexity of cases were at the top
of the list. Surprisingly, other areas queried such as the program’s facilities or if the program is 2 or 3 years were not felt to be important in making a program “outstanding” by current CT residents.
Now that this preliminary data has been collected, a more scientific survey is being developed to administer to future generations of CT residents. The data from which may ultimately serve as a useful guide to “raise all boats” towards greatness in Cardiothoracic training.
********* UNDERSET 1 LINES *********
Fear and Loathing on the Interview Trail
As we strive to provide the most advanced care possible to our patients with vascular disease, there is one area of our practice that stands out as being as archaic as cellophane wrapping of aneurysms: the process of finding a job.
Instead of an enlightening quest to find the perfect practice, many graduating vascular fellows have found it to be a tiring and laborious process. The excitement around the opportunity to finally do what we have trained so long and hard to do has been eclipsed in frustration by a disorganized and antiquated interview process.
The business side of medicine has very much been on display in the popular media with the institution of new healthcare reform legislation. No financially viable business would fly a client halfway across the country to find out if they're a 'good guy' prior to discussing a potential deal. This should not be the routine in medicine, either.
I implore vascular surgeons to utilize technology to modernize the process of expanding their practice. Replace the 'good old boy' and device rep networks with posts on the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Job bank. Loose the recruiters and write a concise description of your current practice and what you have to offer. Replace the mandatory meet and greet first interview with a video conference via SKYPE. This will obviate the need to clear your schedule for the day and shelve the awkward interview in the operating theater.
A colleague of mine has equated interviewing for a vascular surgery job with trying to buy a used car without knowing the price. Even if it requires a non-disclosure agreement, opening the books to a prospective partner early in the interview process is vital. In addition to demonstrating integrity and building good will, it validates your case mix and volume. Without this knowledge, an applicant cannot make an informed decision to join a practice.
Most importantly, be professional. If a candidate is not what you're looking for, be straightforward and tactful. Communicate; don't string someone along in case another prospect falls through.
For those of you who are getting ready to or are still looking for your first job- do your homework. Converse with your faculty members, get in touch with the local device reps, and talk to former fellows about your job prospects. On the interview don't hesitate to pull the ancillary staff aside for their opinion of the group. One of my co-fellows did this and learned that the surgeon had not booked a case in the operating room for six months. The hospital administrators confessed that they were interviewing to replace the surgeon, not hire on a partner.
There are a multitude of resources available to arm yourself when it comes to contract negotiations. Read "The Physician's Comprehensive Guide to Negotiating" (SEAK, Inc.) by Steven Babitsky and James J. Mangraviti, Jr. I obtained a copy through interlibrary loan and read it in two days between cases. It is well worth the small time investment.
Call your institution's physician contract liaison to review a sample contract and gain access to the MGMA physician salary survey. Remember these data includes responses from vascular surgeons in both private practice and academics and may not reflect your true market value. Talk to the fellows who graduated before you to get an idea of what range of offers are out there.
Attend regional and national vascular surgery conferences to network and gain leads. The SVS young surgeon's forum at the annual meeting is a good introduction into the job search process. The most comprehensive review to date is the Mote Vascular Symposium put on by Dr. Russell H. Samson's group out of Sarasota, FL. Beg, borrow, or steal the weekend off to attend this meeting.
Our goal as graduating fellows is to not only provide exceptional care to the patients with vascular disease in the communities we join, but to modernize the practice of our partners. Whether this means an aggressive endovascular approach to aneurysmal disease or overseeing the redesign of the practice's website, by virtue of training in the information age we are well prepared.
Every page of this newspaper is geared toward making us better vascular surgeons. So please, let's start by bringing the interview process in to the 21st century.
Christopher Everett, M.D., is a Vascular Surgery Fellow, year two, at the Greenville University Hospital Medical Center, Greenville, SC.
As we strive to provide the most advanced care possible to our patients with vascular disease, there is one area of our practice that stands out as being as archaic as cellophane wrapping of aneurysms: the process of finding a job.
Instead of an enlightening quest to find the perfect practice, many graduating vascular fellows have found it to be a tiring and laborious process. The excitement around the opportunity to finally do what we have trained so long and hard to do has been eclipsed in frustration by a disorganized and antiquated interview process.
The business side of medicine has very much been on display in the popular media with the institution of new healthcare reform legislation. No financially viable business would fly a client halfway across the country to find out if they're a 'good guy' prior to discussing a potential deal. This should not be the routine in medicine, either.
I implore vascular surgeons to utilize technology to modernize the process of expanding their practice. Replace the 'good old boy' and device rep networks with posts on the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Job bank. Loose the recruiters and write a concise description of your current practice and what you have to offer. Replace the mandatory meet and greet first interview with a video conference via SKYPE. This will obviate the need to clear your schedule for the day and shelve the awkward interview in the operating theater.
A colleague of mine has equated interviewing for a vascular surgery job with trying to buy a used car without knowing the price. Even if it requires a non-disclosure agreement, opening the books to a prospective partner early in the interview process is vital. In addition to demonstrating integrity and building good will, it validates your case mix and volume. Without this knowledge, an applicant cannot make an informed decision to join a practice.
Most importantly, be professional. If a candidate is not what you're looking for, be straightforward and tactful. Communicate; don't string someone along in case another prospect falls through.
For those of you who are getting ready to or are still looking for your first job- do your homework. Converse with your faculty members, get in touch with the local device reps, and talk to former fellows about your job prospects. On the interview don't hesitate to pull the ancillary staff aside for their opinion of the group. One of my co-fellows did this and learned that the surgeon had not booked a case in the operating room for six months. The hospital administrators confessed that they were interviewing to replace the surgeon, not hire on a partner.
There are a multitude of resources available to arm yourself when it comes to contract negotiations. Read "The Physician's Comprehensive Guide to Negotiating" (SEAK, Inc.) by Steven Babitsky and James J. Mangraviti, Jr. I obtained a copy through interlibrary loan and read it in two days between cases. It is well worth the small time investment.
Call your institution's physician contract liaison to review a sample contract and gain access to the MGMA physician salary survey. Remember these data includes responses from vascular surgeons in both private practice and academics and may not reflect your true market value. Talk to the fellows who graduated before you to get an idea of what range of offers are out there.
Attend regional and national vascular surgery conferences to network and gain leads. The SVS young surgeon's forum at the annual meeting is a good introduction into the job search process. The most comprehensive review to date is the Mote Vascular Symposium put on by Dr. Russell H. Samson's group out of Sarasota, FL. Beg, borrow, or steal the weekend off to attend this meeting.
Our goal as graduating fellows is to not only provide exceptional care to the patients with vascular disease in the communities we join, but to modernize the practice of our partners. Whether this means an aggressive endovascular approach to aneurysmal disease or overseeing the redesign of the practice's website, by virtue of training in the information age we are well prepared.
Every page of this newspaper is geared toward making us better vascular surgeons. So please, let's start by bringing the interview process in to the 21st century.
Christopher Everett, M.D., is a Vascular Surgery Fellow, year two, at the Greenville University Hospital Medical Center, Greenville, SC.
As we strive to provide the most advanced care possible to our patients with vascular disease, there is one area of our practice that stands out as being as archaic as cellophane wrapping of aneurysms: the process of finding a job.
Instead of an enlightening quest to find the perfect practice, many graduating vascular fellows have found it to be a tiring and laborious process. The excitement around the opportunity to finally do what we have trained so long and hard to do has been eclipsed in frustration by a disorganized and antiquated interview process.
The business side of medicine has very much been on display in the popular media with the institution of new healthcare reform legislation. No financially viable business would fly a client halfway across the country to find out if they're a 'good guy' prior to discussing a potential deal. This should not be the routine in medicine, either.
I implore vascular surgeons to utilize technology to modernize the process of expanding their practice. Replace the 'good old boy' and device rep networks with posts on the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Job bank. Loose the recruiters and write a concise description of your current practice and what you have to offer. Replace the mandatory meet and greet first interview with a video conference via SKYPE. This will obviate the need to clear your schedule for the day and shelve the awkward interview in the operating theater.
A colleague of mine has equated interviewing for a vascular surgery job with trying to buy a used car without knowing the price. Even if it requires a non-disclosure agreement, opening the books to a prospective partner early in the interview process is vital. In addition to demonstrating integrity and building good will, it validates your case mix and volume. Without this knowledge, an applicant cannot make an informed decision to join a practice.
Most importantly, be professional. If a candidate is not what you're looking for, be straightforward and tactful. Communicate; don't string someone along in case another prospect falls through.
For those of you who are getting ready to or are still looking for your first job- do your homework. Converse with your faculty members, get in touch with the local device reps, and talk to former fellows about your job prospects. On the interview don't hesitate to pull the ancillary staff aside for their opinion of the group. One of my co-fellows did this and learned that the surgeon had not booked a case in the operating room for six months. The hospital administrators confessed that they were interviewing to replace the surgeon, not hire on a partner.
There are a multitude of resources available to arm yourself when it comes to contract negotiations. Read "The Physician's Comprehensive Guide to Negotiating" (SEAK, Inc.) by Steven Babitsky and James J. Mangraviti, Jr. I obtained a copy through interlibrary loan and read it in two days between cases. It is well worth the small time investment.
Call your institution's physician contract liaison to review a sample contract and gain access to the MGMA physician salary survey. Remember these data includes responses from vascular surgeons in both private practice and academics and may not reflect your true market value. Talk to the fellows who graduated before you to get an idea of what range of offers are out there.
Attend regional and national vascular surgery conferences to network and gain leads. The SVS young surgeon's forum at the annual meeting is a good introduction into the job search process. The most comprehensive review to date is the Mote Vascular Symposium put on by Dr. Russell H. Samson's group out of Sarasota, FL. Beg, borrow, or steal the weekend off to attend this meeting.
Our goal as graduating fellows is to not only provide exceptional care to the patients with vascular disease in the communities we join, but to modernize the practice of our partners. Whether this means an aggressive endovascular approach to aneurysmal disease or overseeing the redesign of the practice's website, by virtue of training in the information age we are well prepared.
Every page of this newspaper is geared toward making us better vascular surgeons. So please, let's start by bringing the interview process in to the 21st century.
Christopher Everett, M.D., is a Vascular Surgery Fellow, year two, at the Greenville University Hospital Medical Center, Greenville, SC.
About The Residents' Forum
With this issue, we begin a new column which we have chosen to call Residents' Forum. We hope that Vascular Residents, Fellows, and others interested in entering this exciting field will consider submitting an essay on topics important to them related to vascular surgery and their careers.
-George Andros, M.D., Medical Editor
With this issue, we begin a new column which we have chosen to call Residents' Forum. We hope that Vascular Residents, Fellows, and others interested in entering this exciting field will consider submitting an essay on topics important to them related to vascular surgery and their careers.
-George Andros, M.D., Medical Editor
With this issue, we begin a new column which we have chosen to call Residents' Forum. We hope that Vascular Residents, Fellows, and others interested in entering this exciting field will consider submitting an essay on topics important to them related to vascular surgery and their careers.
-George Andros, M.D., Medical Editor