title: Do supervised colorectal trainees differ from consultants in terms of quality of TME surgery?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The quality of surgical excision is held to be a major determinant of outcome following surgery for rectal cancer. Macroscopic examination of the excised mesorectum allows for reproducible assessment of the quality of surgery. We aimed to determine whether quality of excision undertaken by colorectal trainees under supervision was comparable with that performed by consultants, as measured using mesorectal grades.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 130 consecutive patients undergoing potentially curative resection for primary adenocarcinoma of the rectum in our centre from 2001 to 2003 were included in the study. The pathologists graded the excised mesorectum according to staged classification proposed by Quirke. The outcome (quality of mesorectal excision and secondary outcomes including local recurrence and overall recurrence) of operations performed by consultants was compared with that of trainees. Statistical significance was tested using Pearson chi(2) test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eighty-nine operations were performed by consultants and 41 by senior colorectal trainees with consultant supervision. Forty-four patients (49%) had good mesorectum when operated by consultants in comparison with 17 (41.5%) by the trainees. There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.717) between the two groups in terms of quality of mesorectum excised after potentially curative resection. Furthermore, there were seven local recurrences in patients operated by consultants (7.8%) when compared with four in the trainee group (9.5%) and once again there was no statistical significance between the two groups (P = 0.719).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We conclude that the quality of rectal cancer excision, as defined by mesorectal grades, achieved by supervised colorectal trainees is comparable with that achieved by consultants.
authors.affiliation: Academic Surgical Unit, University of Hull, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, East Yorkshire, UK.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Maslekar
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Sharma
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Macdonald
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Gunn
authors.forename: J R T
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Monson
authors.forename: J E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Hartley
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D002983:Clinical Competence; D013505:Digestive System Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007396:Internship and Residency; D008297:Male; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D012007:Rectum / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D006113:United Kingdom