Blue Ribbon Committee II: Report of the Subcommittee on Faculty Development and Educational Support.

The American College of Surgeons, American Board of Surgery, and the American Surgical Association have created a Blue Ribbon Committee II to evaluate the current status of surgical education in the United States. As part of this endeavor, a subcommittee was formed to address issues pertinent to development of surgical faculty as teachers. This entailed multiple discussions among a group of experienced surgical educators, a review of the literature, and a delphi analysis of possible suggested improvements for faculty educational support, resulting in a final set of recommendations for improvement for future surgical faculty development. These recommendations include a task force to establish a validated system of compensation for faculty teaching, a task force to determine an accurate assessment of the value of surgical trainees to health systems, a review by the Surgical Residency Review Committee and the Association of Program Directors in Surgery of minimal faculty resources for program accreditation in the area of teaching learners, collaborative efforts across surgical specialties for the definition of a national curriculum for faculty, and development of a tool for evaluation of faculty teaching performance.

A statewide quality improvement collaborative significantly improves quality metric adherence and physician engagement in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement national registries provide structured, clinically relevant outcome and process-of-care data to practitioners-with regional meetings to disseminate best practices. However, whether a quality improvement collaborative affects processes of care is less clear. We examined the effects of a statewide hospital collaborative on the adherence rates to best practice guidelines in vascular surgery. METHODS: A large statewide retrospective quality improvement database was reviewed for 2013 to 2019. Hospitals participating in the quality improvement collaborative were required to submit adherence and outcomes data and meet semiannually. They received an incentive through a pay for participation model. The aggregate adherence rates among all hospitals were calculated and compared. RESULTS: A total of 39 hospitals participated in the collaborative, with attendance of surgeon champions at face-to-face meetings of >85%. Statewide, the hospital systems improved every year of participation in the collaborative across most "best practice" domains, including adherence to preoperative skin preparation recommendations (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-1.79; P < .001), intraoperative antibiotic redosing (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .018), statin use at discharge for appropriate patients (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.2; P < .001), and reducing transfusions for asymptomatic patients with hemoglobin >8 mg/dL (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.66-0.66; P < .001). The use of antiplatelet therapy at discharge remained high and did not change significantly during the study period. Teaching hospital and urban or rural status did not affect adherence. The adherence rates exceeded the professional society mean rates for guideline adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a statewide hospital collaborative with incentivized semiannual meetings resulted in significant improvements in adherence to "best practice" guidelines across a large, heterogeneous group of hospitals.

The initial experience and response of vascular surgeons in Michigan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The unprecedented pandemic spread of the novel coronavirus has severely impacted the delivery of healthcare services in the United States and around the world, and has exposed a variety of inefficiencies in healthcare infrastructure. Some states have been disproportionately affected such as New York and Michigan. In fact, Detroit and its surrounding areas have been named as the initial Midwest epicenter where over 106,000 cases have been confirmed in April 2020. METHOD, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Facilities in Southeast Michigan have served as the frontline of the pandemic in the Midwest and in order to cope with the surge, rapid, and in some cases, complete restructuring of care was mandatory to effect change and attempt to deal with the emerging crisis. We describe the initial experience and response of 4 large vascular surgery health systems in Michigan to COVID-19.

Simulation in surgical education.

Simulation is becoming an important tool in surgical education. Surgical faculty have been forced to modify how they teach technical skills. Instead of a complete reliance on teaching in the operating room, a structured curriculum and dedicated time in the simulation center are being used in many centers. Some of the advantages of this approach include the ability to learn and practice new procedures in a safe and nurturing environment. The disadvantages include the significant cost of virtual reality simulators and the competition, between various training programs, to gain access to simulation.

Fenestrated repair improves perioperative outcomes but lacks a hospital volume association for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have traditionally been treated with an open surgical repair (OSR). During the past decade, fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has emerged as a viable option. Hospital procedural volume to outcome relationship for OSR of complex AAAs has been well established, but the impact of procedural volume on FEVAR outcomes remains undefined. This study investigated the outcomes of OSR and FEVAR for the treatment of complex AAAs and examined the hospital volume-outcome relationship for these procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of a statewide vascular surgery registry was queried for all patients between 2012 and 2018 who underwent elective repair of a juxtarenal/pararenal AAA with FEVAR or OSR. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, and new dialysis. Secondary end points included postoperative pneumonia, renal dysfunction (creatine concentration increase of >2 mg/dL from preoperative baseline), major bleeding, early procedural complications, length of stay, and need for reintervention. To evaluate procedural volume-outcomes relationship, hospitals were stratified into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on a FEVAR annual procedural volume. To account for baseline differences, we calculated propensity scores and employed inverse probability of treatment weighting in comparing outcomes between treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 589 patients underwent FEVAR (n = 186) or OSR (n = 403) for a complex AAA. After adjustment, OSR was associated with higher rates of 30-day mortality (10.7% vs 2.9%; P < .001) and need for dialysis (11.3% vs 1.8; P < .001). Postoperative pneumonia (6.8% vs 0.3%; P < .001) and need for transfusion (39.4% vs 10.4%; P < .001) were also significantly higher in the OSR cohort. The median length of stay for OSR and FEVAR was 9 days and 3 days, respectively. For those who underwent FEVAR, endoleaks were present in 12.1% of patients at 30 days and 6.1% of patients at 1 year, with the majority being type II. With a median follow-up period of 331 days (229-378 days), 1% of FEVAR patients required a secondary procedure, and there were no FEVAR conversions to an open aortic repair. Hospitals were divided into low- and high-volume aortic centers based on their annual FEVAR volume of complex AAAs. After adjustment, hospital FEVAR procedural volume was not associated with 30-day mortality or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR was associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with OSR for the management of complex AAAs. Procedural FEVAR volume outcome analysis suggests limited differences in 30-day morbidity, although long-term durability warrants further research.

Modeling the elective vascular surgery recovery after coronavirus disease 2019: Implications for moving forward.

OBJECTIVE: The delays in elective surgery caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in a substantial backlog of cases. In the present study, we sought to determine the estimated time to recovery for vascular surgery procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic in a regional health system. METHODS: Using data from a 35-hospital regional vascular surgical collaborative consisting of all hospitals performing vascular surgery in the state of Michigan, we estimated the number of delayed surgical cases for adults undergoing carotid endarterectomy, carotid stenting, endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and lower extremity bypass. We used seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to predict the surgical volume in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical data to predict the elective surgical recovery time. RESULTS: The median statewide monthly vascular surgical volume for the study period was 439 procedures, with a maximum statewide monthly case volume of 519 procedures. For the month of April 2020, the elective vascular surgery procedural volume decreased by ∼90%. Significant variability was seen in the estimated hospital capacity and estimated number of backlogged cases, with the recovery of elective cases estimated to require ∼8 months. If hospitals across the collaborative were to share the burden of backlogged cases, the recovery could be shortened to ∼3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study of vascular surgical volume in a regional health collaborative, elective surgical procedures decreased by 90%, resulting in a backlog of >700 cases. The recovery time if all hospitals in the collaborative were to share the burden of backlogged cases would be reduced from 8 months to 3 months, underscoring the necessity of regional and statewide policies to minimize patient harm by delays in recovery for elective surgery.

Comprehensive Multicenter Graduate Surgical Education Initiative Incorporating Entrustable Professional Activities, Continuous Quality Improvement Cycles, and a Web-Based Platform to Enhance Teaching and Learning.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly important for faculty to teach deliberately and provide timely, detailed, and formative feedback on surgical trainee performance. We initiated a multicenter study to improve resident evaluative processes and enhance teaching and learning behaviors while engaging residents in their education. STUDY DESIGN: Faculty from 7 US postgraduate training programs rated resident operative performances using the perioperative briefing, intraoperative teaching, debriefing model, and rated patient visits/academic performances using the entrustable professional activities model via a web-based platform. Data were centrally analyzed and iterative changes made based on participant feedback, individual preferences, and database refinements, with trends addressed using the Plan, Do, Check, Act improvement methodology. RESULTS: Participants (92 surgeons, 150 residents) submitted 3,880 assessments during July 2014 through September 2017. Evidence of preoperative briefings improved from 33.9% ± 2.5% to 95.5% ± 1.5% between April and September 2014 compared with April and September 2017 (p < 0.001). Postoperative debriefings improved from 10.6% ± 2.7% to 90.2% ± 2.5% (p < 0.001) for the same period. Meaningful self-reflection by residents improved from 28.6% to 67.4% (p < 0.001). The number of assessments received per resident during a 6-month period increased from 6.4 ± 6.2 to 13.4 ± 10.1 (p < 0.003). Surgeon-entered assessments increased from 364 initially to 685 in the final period, and the number of resident assessments increased from 308 to 445. We showed a 4-fold increase in resident observed activities being rated. CONCLUSIONS: By adopting recognized educational models with repeated Plan, Do, Check, Act cycles, we increased the quality of preoperative learning objectives, showed more frequent, detailed, and timely assessments of resident performance, and demonstrated more effective self-reflection by residents. We monitored trends, identified opportunities for improvement and successfully sustained those improvements over time, applying a team-based approach.

The Clinical Impact of Cardiology Consultation Prior to Major Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To understand statewide variation in preoperative cardiology consultation prior to major vascular surgery and to determine whether consultation was associated with differences in perioperative myocardial infarction (poMI). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Medical consultation prior to major vascular surgery is obtained to reduce perioperative risk. Despite perceived benefit of preoperative consultation, evidence is lacking specifically for major vascular surgery on the effect of preoperative cardiac consultation. METHODS: Patient and clinical data were obtained from a statewide vascular surgery registry between January 2012 and December 2014. Patients were risk stratified by revised cardiac risk index category and compared poMI between patients who did or did not receive a preoperative cardiology consultation. We then used logistic regression analysis to compare the rate of poMI across hospitals grouped into quartiles by rate of preoperative cardiology consultation. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 5191 patients undergoing open peripheral arterial bypass (n = 3037), open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n = 332), or endovascular aneurysm repair (n = 1822) at 29 hospitals. At the patient level, after risk-stratification by revised cardiac risk index category, there was no association between cardiac consultation and poMI. At the hospital level, preoperative cardiac consultation varied substantially between hospitals (6.9%-87.5%, P <0.001). High preoperative consulting hospitals (rate >66%) had a reduction in poMI (OR, 0.52; confidence interval: 0.28-0.98; P <0.05) compared with all other hospitals. These hospitals also had a statistically greater consultation rate with a variety of medical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cardiology consultation for vascular surgery varies greatly between institutions, and does not appear to impact poMI at the patient level. However, reduction of poMI was noted at the hospitals with the highest rate of preoperative cardiology consultation as well as a variety of medical services, suggesting that other hospital culture effects play a role.

The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making related to the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is complex. Aneurysms present with varying risks of rupture, and patient-specific factors influence anticipated life expectancy, operative risk, and need to intervene. Careful attention to the choice of operative strategy along with optimal treatment of medical comorbidities is critical to achieving excellent outcomes. Moreover, appropriate postoperative surveillance is necessary to minimize subsequent aneurysm-related death or morbidity. METHODS: The committee made specific practice recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Three systematic reviews were conducted to support this guideline. Two focused on evaluating the best modalities and optimal frequency for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). A third focused on identifying the best available evidence on the diagnosis and management of AAA. Specific areas of focus included (1) general approach to the patient, (2) treatment of the patient with an AAA, (3) anesthetic considerations and perioperative management, (4) postoperative and long-term management, and (5) cost and economic considerations. RESULTS: Along with providing guidance regarding the management of patients throughout the continuum of care, we have revised a number of prior recommendations and addressed a number of new areas of significance. New guidelines are provided for the surveillance of patients with an AAA, including recommended surveillance imaging at 12-month intervals for patients with an AAA of 4.0 to 4.9 cm in diameter. We recommend endovascular repair as the preferred method of treatment for ruptured aneurysms. Incorporating knowledge gained through the Vascular Quality Initiative and other regional quality collaboratives, we suggest that the Vascular Quality Initiative mortality risk score be used for mutual decision-making with patients considering aneurysm repair. We also suggest that elective EVAR be limited to hospitals with a documented mortality and conversion rate to open surgical repair of 2% or less and that perform at least 10 EVAR cases each year. We also suggest that elective open aneurysm repair be limited to hospitals with a documented mortality of 5% or less and that perform at least 10 open aortic operations of any type each year. To encourage the development of effective systems of care that would lead to improved outcomes for those patients undergoing emergent repair, we suggest a door-to-intervention time of <90 minutes, based on a framework of 30-30-30 minutes, for the management of the patient with a ruptured aneurysm. We recommend treatment of type I and III endoleaks as well as of type II endoleaks with aneurysm expansion but recommend continued surveillance of type II endoleaks not associated with aneurysm expansion. Whereas antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for patients with an aortic prosthesis before any dental procedure involving the manipulation of the gingival or periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended before respiratory tract procedures, gastrointestinal or genitourinary procedures, and dermatologic or musculoskeletal procedures unless the potential for infection exists or the patient is immunocompromised. Increased utilization of color duplex ultrasound is suggested for postoperative surveillance after EVAR in the absence of endoleak or aneurysm expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Important new recommendations are provided for the care of patients with an AAA, including suggestions to improve mutual decision-making between the treating physician and the patients and their families as well as a number of new strategies to enhance perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing elective and emergent repair. Areas of uncertainty are highlighted that would benefit from further investigation in addition to existing limitations in diagnostic tests, pharmacologic agents, intraoperative tools, and devices.

Predictors of surgical site infection after open lower extremity revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical site infection (SSI) after open lower extremity bypass (LEB) is a serious complication leading to an increased rate of graft failure, hospital readmission, and health care costs. This study sought to identify predictors of SSI after LEB for arterial occlusive disease and also potential modifiable factors to improve outcomes. METHODS: Data from a statewide cardiovascular consortium of 35 hospitals were used to obtain demographic, procedural, and hospital risk factors for patients undergoing elective or urgent open LEB between January 2012 and June 2015. Bivariate comparisons and targeted maximum likelihood estimation were used to identify independent risk factors of SSI. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and hospital-level factors. RESULTS: Our study population included 3033 patients who underwent 703 femoral-femoral bypasses, 1431 femoral-popliteal bypasses, and 899 femoral-distal vessel bypasses. An SSI was diagnosed in 320 patients (10.6%) ≤30 days after the index operation. Adjusted patient and procedural predictors of SSI included renal failure currently requiring dialysis (OR, 4.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.45-5.47; P < .001), hypertension (OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 2.74-6.72; P < .001), body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.23-2.57; P = .002), procedural time >240 minutes (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.89-4.62; P < .001), and iodine-only skin preparation (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.02-2.91; P = .04). Hospital factors associated with increased SSI included hospital size <500 beds (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.09-4.55; P = .028) and major teaching hospital (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.07-2.58; P = .024). SSI resulted in increased risk of major amputation and surgical reoperation (P < .01), but did not affect 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SSI after LEB is associated with an increase in rate of amputation and reoperation. Several patient, operative, and hospital-related risk factors that predict postoperative SSI were identified, suggesting that targeted improvements in perioperative care may decrease complications and improve vascular patient outcomes.

Outcomes of a single-center experience with classification and treatment of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis after endovenous ablation.

OBJECTIVE: Endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) is a known complication of endothermal venous ablation procedures. EHIT can lead to deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, which cause significant disability and, rarely, death. Other studies have evaluated risk factors for EHIT. There is an accepted grading system for EHIT, but there is no consensus on treatment type, duration, or follow-up. We retrospectively evaluated all cases of EHIT after radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation at our institution during a 7-year period, focusing on classification, treatment, and outcomes of EHIT. METHODS: The analysis included all patients aged >18 years who underwent radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation at our institution, Spectrum Health Hospital Vein Solutions (Grand Rapids, Mich), between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2014. Electronic medical records were queried retrospectively to identify patients with EHIT during the study interval by International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision code. Demographic data, including age, gender, comorbidities (eg, history of deep venous thrombosis, hypercoagulable state, family history of blood clots, etc), body mass index, Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification, and use of preoperative anticoagulation were collected for each patient in the registry. Each patient had a required postoperative duplex ultrasound (US) examination within 1 to 2 weeks of the procedure. Preoperative and postoperative US imaging data and procedure-specific data were also recorded for each patient. EHIT was graded from 1 to 4 by review of the US studies. Each patient's treatment course was reviewed for type of anticoagulation, duration of treatment, follow-up imaging, and outcome. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2014, 4799 ablations were performed at Spectrum Health Hospital Vein Center, and EHIT was identified in 70 patients. At presentation, 87% of patients were asymptomatic, 10% reported pain, and 2.9% reported swelling. Patients with EHIT grades 1 or 2 were treated with daily aspirin, and most of those with grades 3 or 4 were treated with systemic anticoagulation. Repeat US imaging was performed at 1 to 2 weeks to evaluate progression. Progression was not seen in any patients treated with systemic anticoagulation (grades 3-4). Thrombus progression occurred in two patients with grades 1 or 2 EHIT treated with aspirin. A bleeding complication occurred in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: EHIT after endovenous ablation occurred in ∼1.5% of patients, which is similar to that reported in the literature. Our review shows that systemic anticoagulation is effective in the prevention of progression with a low risk of bleeding complications. Patients with EHIT grades 1 or 2 can be treated with aspirin alone with a low risk of progression (3%).

Cosmetic sclerotherapy.

Telangiectasias and spider veins are considered a common cosmetic concern for both women and men. Sclerotherapy is a frequently used, low-risk, and highly successful method to treat these venous problems. This article reviews the pathophysiology and diagnosis of telangiectasias and reticular veins as well as the currently available agents and techniques of sclerotherapy. The possible complications and adverse outcomes of sclerotherapy are described. Standard care and follow-up for patients after the procedure are outlined. Also included are tips and tricks found to be valuable in a busy vein practice.

Outcomes for forearm and upper arm arteriovenous fistula creation with the transposition technique.

OBJECTIVE: To study the outcomes of three different types of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) transpositions (forearm cephalic vein transposition [FACVT], upper arm cephalic vein transposition [UACVT], and upper arm basilic vein transposition [UABVT]) for dialysis patients in a single center. METHODS: A 6-year retrospective review, from 2006 to 2012, was conducted at a single institution in which the surgical outcomes for three different types of AVF transposition were reviewed. Preoperative duplex vein mapping was obtained in all patients to choose the best vein for access. RESULTS: There were 165 patients identified with 77 FACVTs, 52 UACVTs, and 36 UABVTs. Primary access maturation rates for the FACVT, UACVT, and UABVT groups were 86%, 90%, and 97%, respectively (P = .19). All transposed, matured primary AVFs were used after a mean of 9.9 weeks, without additional intervention. Primary 1-year patency for the FACVT, UACVT, and UABVT groups were 63%, 61%, and 70%, respectively (P = .71). Primary assisted 1-year patency for the FACVT, UACVT, and UABVT groups were 93%, 93%, and 100%, respectively (P > .999). Mean operating room times and time to intervention were not significantly different between the groups. The postoperative hematoma rate was 2% and wound infection rate was 2%. Multivariate analysis indicated no significant predictors of time to failure (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: With low primary failure rates, reduced need for secondary interventions before maturation, and 1-year primary assisted patency rates in excess of 93%, our study showed that the transposition technique, in our experience, is superior to previously published literature in hemodialysis access creation.

Combined Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Presentation of 3 Cases and a Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease and abdominal aortic aneurysmal disease can occur in a single patient, and a therapeutic conundrum presents when open surgical repair is indicated for both conditions. The traditional standard of care is to conduct coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) followed by abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair 2-6 months later, but there is significant risk with staging these 2 major surgeries. An alternative method is to surgically repair both diseases in 1 combined operation. The aim of our study is to review our own experience with the combined procedure and to review the published literature to assess morbidity and mortality of combined CABG and AAA repair. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies was performed in the PubMed/Medline database. Short-term mortality (<30 days) and postoperative complications were assessed from relevant case series from 1993 to 2013. We also conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing the combined procedure at our institution. RESULTS: Thirty case series with a total of 369 patients averaged a 30-day mortality of 3.0%. Fourteen percent and 6% of patients experienced a cardiovascular or respiratory complication, respectively. Other postoperative events included acute renal failure (7%) and superficial wound complications (5%). In our own experience, 3 patients underwent combined CABG and AAA repair. The mean age was 71 years, the average AAA size was 8.9 cm, and average operative time was 328 min. None experienced any postoperative complications. Two are still alive at 9 and 10 years after surgery, and 1 died of unrelated causes 8 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that combined CABG and AAA repair is a viable procedure with low operative mortality. Patients with preserved ejection fractions, large AAA, and limited comorbidities appear to receive the most benefit from a combined approach based on reported data from the literature. We have experienced promising results in our highly selected patient population. More research is warranted to devise criteria to determine which patients would be good surgical candidates for this combined procedure.

A multidisciplinary approach for abdominal venous involvement in oncologic resections.

BACKGROUND: An aggressive surgical approach to locally advanced malignancy is being increasingly used in the absence of distant metastatic disease. This includes resection and reconstruction of major venous structures. We investigated the results of using a multidisciplinary surgical approach in these instances. METHODS: The study data were obtained from a university-affiliated hospital from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012. All patients who underwent an oncologic resection using a multidisciplinary approach with vascular surgery consultation were included in the analysis. Primary outcomes analyzed included rate of margin positivity, postoperative venous patency, and survival. Secondary outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients met criteria for study. Venous involvement included the portal and/or superior mesenteric vein and inferior vena cava in 14 and 9 patients, respectively. Nine patients had clear vascular involvement before surgery and received preoperative consultation. Overall margins were positive in 56.5%, whereas the rate of vascular margin positivity was 30.4%. The postoperative venous patency rate was 65.0%. There were no perioperative mortalities, and median survival was 10 months (range, 4-80). CONCLUSIONS: Major venous resections and reconstructions in oncologic surgery are safe but associated with a high rate of positive margins. Future efforts should focus on identifying patients in the preoperative phase to provide opportunity for optimal multidisciplinary planning.