This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

AJAY K. SHARMA, MS; R. SURANGE, MS; S. K. MISHRA, MS
Lucknow, India

Arch Surg. 1992;127(8):993.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—We read the article by Shaked et al¹ in the May 1991 issue of the ARCHIVES with interest. We would like to share our opinion, and convey a few suggestions. Yes, we too believe that surgery performed by residents under "painstaking supervision" and guidance of a consultant who is aware of his or her resident's capabilities and drawbacks, is safe. The constraint in such a study is judging whether it is really possible to obtain "true consent" from a patient who would, obviously, like to get operated on by a consultant. Second, the need for intraoperative assistance or to have a consultant take over the case for tackling an unusual anatomical/pathological difficulty will make correct interpretation of such a study difficult. Practice being an inseparable part of training, the training would suffer unless the surgeon-in-making gets to perform surgery. Hence, a variable is required that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?