Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Unpacking the surgical approach to nonpalpable breast lesions: bridging the knowledge gap between educators and trainees

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The surgical technique for excising a nonpalpable breast lesion (NBL) can vary by surgeon and by pathology, posing a unique challenge for transfer of knowledge from educators to trainees. The objective of this study is to examine the teaching and learning of this procedure to bridge knowledge gaps to ultimately create a standardized paradigm for instruction regarding NBLs.

Methods

This was a multi-institutional, observational study in which six educators and six trainees underwent video-stimulated interviews. Interviews were transcribed and qualitative analysis was performed to identify common themes.

Results

Educator themes included “Experience-Based Skill Development”, “Under-Appreciated Difficulty of Lumpectomies by Trainees”, and “Challenges in Educating Trainees”. Trainee themes included “Request for Autonomy” and “Difficulty Understanding Key Steps from Educators”. Breast surgery educators discussed that part of the challenge is inherent to the operation, as there are no anatomical boundaries within the breast, thereby requiring the use of spatial thinking, further complicated by limited visualization due to a small incision. Trainees discussed the limits of verbal teaching, inability to conceptualize the location of the NBL, while also visualizing the operative working space Both educators and trainees expressed that the most effective interactions involved preoperative planning together and communication of expectations. Based on these results, a six-step structured paradigm was developed as a tool for educators to teach excision of nonpalpable breast lesions.

Conclusion

This study exposes key differences in concepts that educators and trainees consider during excision of NBLs. Understanding these challenges and consistently using the proposed structured paradigm may improve the teaching and learning of the skills required for this operation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benson JR, Jatoi I, Keisch M, Esteva FJ, Makris A, Jordan VC. Early breast cancer. Lancet. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60316-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lynge E, Ponti A, James T, Májek O, von Euler-Chelpin M, Anttila A, Fitzpatrick P, Frigerio A, Kawai M, Scharpantgen A, et al. Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the international cancer screening network. Eur J Cancer. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.08.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sharek D, Zuley ML, Zhang JY, Soran A, Ahrendt GM, Ganott MA. Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes. Am J Roentgenol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cox CE, Garcia-Henriquez N, Glancy MJ, Whitworth P, Cox JM, Themar-Geck M, Prati R, Jung M, Russell S, Appleton K, et al. Pilot study of a new nonradioactive surgical guidance technology for locating nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-5079-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheang E, Ha R, Thornton CM, Mango VL. Innovations in image-guided preoperative breast lesion localization. Br J Radiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170740

  6. Kelly BN, Webster AJ, Lamb L, Spivey T, Korotkin JE, Henriquez A, Gadd MA, Hughes KS, Lehman CR, Smith BL, Specht MC. Magnetic seeds: an alternative to wire localization for nonpalpable breast lesions. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2022.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Huffman EM, Martin JR, Stefanidis D. Teaching technical surgery. Surgery. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberts NK, Williams RG, Kim MJ, Dunnington GL. The briefing, intraoperative teaching, debriefing model for teaching in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pernar LI, Peyre SE, Hasson RM, Lipsitz S, Corso K, Ashley SW, Breen EM. Exploring the content of intraoperative teaching. J Surg Educ. 2016;73(1):79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Collings A, Doster D, Longtin K, Choi J, Torbeck L, Stefanidis D. Surgical resident perspectives on the preferred qualities of effective intraoperative teachers: a qualitative analysis. Acad Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Timberlake MD, Mayo HG, Scott L, Weis J, Gardner AK. What do we know about intraoperative teaching? Ann Surg. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rose JS, Waibel BH, Schenarts PJ. Disparity between resident and faculty surgeons’ perceptions of preoperative preparation, intraoperative teaching, and postoperative feedback. J Surg Educ. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rao A, Tait I, Alijani A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of mental training in the acquisition of technical skills in surgery. Am J Surg. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.01.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anton NE, Beane J, Yurco AM, Howley LD, Bean E, Myers EM, Stefanidis D. Mental skills training effectively minimizes operative performance deterioration under stressful conditions: results of a randomized controlled study. Am J Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.09.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dunkin B, Adrales GL, Apelgren K, Mellinger JD. Surgical simulation: a current review. Surg Endosc. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9072-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dawe SR, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, Cregan PC, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ. A systematic review of surgical skills transfer after simulation-based training: laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Ann Surg. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000245. (PMID: 24100339).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koichopolos J, Hawel J, Shlomovitz E, Habaz I, Elnahas A, Alkhamesi NA, Schlachta CM. Correlation of surgical trainee performance on laparoscopic versus endoscopic simulation. Surg Endosc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06978-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in general surgery. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/440_generalsurgery_2020.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2023.

  19. Roark AA, Ebuoma LO, Ortiz-Perez T, Sepulveda KA, Severs FJ, Wang T, Benveniste AP, Sedgwick EL. Impact of simulation-based training on radiology trainee education in ultrasound-guided breast biopsies. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(10):1458–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.09.016. (Epub 2017 Dec 6 PMID: 29222002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kankam H, Lenti L, Razai MS, Hourston G, Khatib M. The role of simulation in training breast surgeons: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2021;103(5):318–23. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2020.7138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362. (PMID: 20014004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Charmaz K. The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qual Inq. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the educators and learners who participated in the interviews and allowed us to report these findings.

Funding

No funding was received for the conduct of this study or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 300 Halket St., Suite 2601, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Hira H. Abidi, Priscilla F. McAuliffe, Ronald R. Johnson, Jennifer G. Steiman & Emilia J. Diego

  2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Hira H. Abidi

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Eliza B. Littleton

Authors
  1. Hira H. Abidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliza B. Littleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priscilla F. McAuliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald R. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer G. Steiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emilia J. Diego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilia J. Diego.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abidi, H.H., Littleton, E.B., McAuliffe, P.F. et al. Unpacking the surgical approach to nonpalpable breast lesions: bridging the knowledge gap between educators and trainees. Global Surg Educ 3, 11 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-023-00211-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-023-00211-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation