You will graduate from MGH being able to operate just fine. Otherwise it wouldn't be accredited and put out so many great surgeons. Surgery is a practice that you're constantly getting better at until your career winds down. You're far from your peak when you graduate from residency.
People also go to a place like MGH to sub-specialize and become an expert in a niche, not to be general community neurosurgeons. Doing 2500 cases isn't necessary to do that, since most of those cases will be things you'll never be expected to see or operate on in the future. People like to talk shit on this site about programs like this, but every program has it's role in the field and most are more general.
Only unhappy residents get on here and talk shit. If someone gets on here, bashes other programs, and says they love that they're getting killed and hitting 2500+ cases, you have to ask yourself how and why they found the time. Either they're not as busy as they say, not as professionally minded as they say, or not as happy as they say.
The only useful advice I can give is that BWH has all the same research opportunities, not quite the reputation, but more cases, so you can consider that more if you're worried.
(04-29-2021, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: (04-27-2021, 04:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-27-2021, 03:21 PM)GuestP Wrote: LOL “disparaging”...
Sounds like you are looking for someone to reassure you about the poor operative experience and technical training at places like MGH. There’s a reason this reputation sticks, because it is unfortunately true. Do you want superior neurosurgical technical training (Barrow, Carolinas, Mayo, etc) or do you want a superior laboratory experience and be a great researcher only operating 1 day/week?
People always say this on here, but as someone finishing residency relatively soon I'm not convinced that actually matters. Are Hervey-Jumper and Khoi Than poor surgeons because they trained at Michigan, a research program? Kalkanis, Hoh, Sheth, Aghi all young(ish) attendings graduating from MGH, currently rising to the top of the national neurosurgery ranks, are they poor surgeons? This notion that you are a poor surgeon after graduating from research heavy programs doesn't seem to prove true when you look at the evidence, and that's coming from a resident at one of the often mentioned "superior technical training programs" on this site. We get our asses kicked with cases but I don't feel much better at hemicranis after my 300th than I did at my 100th.
OP if you want an honest opinion you'll still have the potential to become a great surgeon, that can be said about almost every program in the top 50 on doximity, but a lot will be expected out of you from a research perspective. If you have no interest in basic science that can make you an outcast among faculty leadership and it might make your time in residency harder. This is why you'll always hear us talk about "fit" during interviews. For example my program doesn't care much about research. I spend all my time in the OR, publish 1 or 2 retrospective studies a year, and no one bothers me. I prefer it that way. But if I woke up one day and wanted to find a way to get funding and some day start my own lab my department does not have many of those resources and it would be difficult.
I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
You've done 2500 cases and are still working on your subcuticular stitches?
lmao
(04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: (04-27-2021, 04:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-27-2021, 03:21 PM)GuestP Wrote: LOL “disparaging”...
Sounds like you are looking for someone to reassure you about the poor operative experience and technical training at places like MGH. There’s a reason this reputation sticks, because it is unfortunately true. Do you want superior neurosurgical technical training (Barrow, Carolinas, Mayo, etc) or do you want a superior laboratory experience and be a great researcher only operating 1 day/week?
People always say this on here, but as someone finishing residency relatively soon I'm not convinced that actually matters. Are Hervey-Jumper and Khoi Than poor surgeons because they trained at Michigan, a research program? Kalkanis, Hoh, Sheth, Aghi all young(ish) attendings graduating from MGH, currently rising to the top of the national neurosurgery ranks, are they poor surgeons? This notion that you are a poor surgeon after graduating from research heavy programs doesn't seem to prove true when you look at the evidence, and that's coming from a resident at one of the often mentioned "superior technical training programs" on this site. We get our asses kicked with cases but I don't feel much better at hemicranis after my 300th than I did at my 100th.
OP if you want an honest opinion you'll still have the potential to become a great surgeon, that can be said about almost every program in the top 50 on doximity, but a lot will be expected out of you from a research perspective. If you have no interest in basic science that can make you an outcast among faculty leadership and it might make your time in residency harder. This is why you'll always hear us talk about "fit" during interviews. For example my program doesn't care much about research. I spend all my time in the OR, publish 1 or 2 retrospective studies a year, and no one bothers me. I prefer it that way. But if I woke up one day and wanted to find a way to get funding and some day start my own lab my department does not have many of those resources and it would be difficult.
I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
The trick is to not use a knot at all
(04-29-2021, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: (04-27-2021, 04:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-27-2021, 03:21 PM)GuestP Wrote: LOL “disparaging”...
Sounds like you are looking for someone to reassure you about the poor operative experience and technical training at places like MGH. There’s a reason this reputation sticks, because it is unfortunately true. Do you want superior neurosurgical technical training (Barrow, Carolinas, Mayo, etc) or do you want a superior laboratory experience and be a great researcher only operating 1 day/week?
People always say this on here, but as someone finishing residency relatively soon I'm not convinced that actually matters. Are Hervey-Jumper and Khoi Than poor surgeons because they trained at Michigan, a research program? Kalkanis, Hoh, Sheth, Aghi all young(ish) attendings graduating from MGH, currently rising to the top of the national neurosurgery ranks, are they poor surgeons? This notion that you are a poor surgeon after graduating from research heavy programs doesn't seem to prove true when you look at the evidence, and that's coming from a resident at one of the often mentioned "superior technical training programs" on this site. We get our asses kicked with cases but I don't feel much better at hemicranis after my 300th than I did at my 100th.
OP if you want an honest opinion you'll still have the potential to become a great surgeon, that can be said about almost every program in the top 50 on doximity, but a lot will be expected out of you from a research perspective. If you have no interest in basic science that can make you an outcast among faculty leadership and it might make your time in residency harder. This is why you'll always hear us talk about "fit" during interviews. For example my program doesn't care much about research. I spend all my time in the OR, publish 1 or 2 retrospective studies a year, and no one bothers me. I prefer it that way. But if I woke up one day and wanted to find a way to get funding and some day start my own lab my department does not have many of those resources and it would be difficult.
I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
You've done 2500 cases and are still working on your subcuticular stitches?
I like how he disses MGH and then in the same breath he talks about struggling with stitching after 2500 cases. Can't even see the irony.
Como se llamo esto i am from SPAIN
Posts: 664
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation:
6
(04-29-2021, 04:22 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: (04-27-2021, 04:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-27-2021, 03:21 PM)GuestP Wrote: LOL “disparaging”...
Sounds like you are looking for someone to reassure you about the poor operative experience and technical training at places like MGH. There’s a reason this reputation sticks, because it is unfortunately true. Do you want superior neurosurgical technical training (Barrow, Carolinas, Mayo, etc) or do you want a superior laboratory experience and be a great researcher only operating 1 day/week?
People always say this on here, but as someone finishing residency relatively soon I'm not convinced that actually matters. Are Hervey-Jumper and Khoi Than poor surgeons because they trained at Michigan, a research program? Kalkanis, Hoh, Sheth, Aghi all young(ish) attendings graduating from MGH, currently rising to the top of the national neurosurgery ranks, are they poor surgeons? This notion that you are a poor surgeon after graduating from research heavy programs doesn't seem to prove true when you look at the evidence, and that's coming from a resident at one of the often mentioned "superior technical training programs" on this site. We get our asses kicked with cases but I don't feel much better at hemicranis after my 300th than I did at my 100th.
OP if you want an honest opinion you'll still have the potential to become a great surgeon, that can be said about almost every program in the top 50 on doximity, but a lot will be expected out of you from a research perspective. If you have no interest in basic science that can make you an outcast among faculty leadership and it might make your time in residency harder. This is why you'll always hear us talk about "fit" during interviews. For example my program doesn't care much about research. I spend all my time in the OR, publish 1 or 2 retrospective studies a year, and no one bothers me. I prefer it that way. But if I woke up one day and wanted to find a way to get funding and some day start my own lab my department does not have many of those resources and it would be difficult.
I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
The trick is to not use a knot at all
Yes I've tried that too.
Posts: 664
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation:
6
04-30-2021, 11:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2021, 02:06 PM by Focus.)
(04-29-2021, 04:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-29-2021, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: (04-27-2021, 04:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-27-2021, 03:21 PM)GuestP Wrote: LOL “disparaging”...
Sounds like you are looking for someone to reassure you about the poor operative experience and technical training at places like MGH. There’s a reason this reputation sticks, because it is unfortunately true. Do you want superior neurosurgical technical training (Barrow, Carolinas, Mayo, etc) or do you want a superior laboratory experience and be a great researcher only operating 1 day/week?
People always say this on here, but as someone finishing residency relatively soon I'm not convinced that actually matters. Are Hervey-Jumper and Khoi Than poor surgeons because they trained at Michigan, a research program? Kalkanis, Hoh, Sheth, Aghi all young(ish) attendings graduating from MGH, currently rising to the top of the national neurosurgery ranks, are they poor surgeons? This notion that you are a poor surgeon after graduating from research heavy programs doesn't seem to prove true when you look at the evidence, and that's coming from a resident at one of the often mentioned "superior technical training programs" on this site. We get our asses kicked with cases but I don't feel much better at hemicranis after my 300th than I did at my 100th.
OP if you want an honest opinion you'll still have the potential to become a great surgeon, that can be said about almost every program in the top 50 on doximity, but a lot will be expected out of you from a research perspective. If you have no interest in basic science that can make you an outcast among faculty leadership and it might make your time in residency harder. This is why you'll always hear us talk about "fit" during interviews. For example my program doesn't care much about research. I spend all my time in the OR, publish 1 or 2 retrospective studies a year, and no one bothers me. I prefer it that way. But if I woke up one day and wanted to find a way to get funding and some day start my own lab my department does not have many of those resources and it would be difficult.
I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
You've done 2500 cases and are still working on your subcuticular stitches?
I like how he disses MGH and then in the same breath he talks about struggling with stitching after 2500 cases. Can't even see the irony.
How did I diss MGH? I specifically stated that I have no experience with that program and cannot comment on their training. I never said I was struggling with stitching. I said perfecting. I don't know when one is supposed to stop learning from their cases but I know for a fact that once you decide that you have nothing to learn then you stop learning. Spetzler practiced surgical technique in the anatomy lab to the end of his career. What is the best suture to use for a sub q? Is it the one that your attending told you? Have you experimented with 4-0, 5-0, and 6-0 to see which one has the best appearance both in the or and also the slimmest scar in clinic weeks later? How do the edges look? I don't want a decent scar on my patients I want my scars to be the nicest looking so when these folks hop on their Facebook interest groups my incisions are the top cosmesis result as well as associated with the best possible surgical outcome.
(04-30-2021, 11:30 AM)Focus Wrote: (04-29-2021, 04:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-29-2021, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: (04-27-2021, 04:59 PM)Guest Wrote: People always say this on here, but as someone finishing residency relatively soon I'm not convinced that actually matters. Are Hervey-Jumper and Khoi Than poor surgeons because they trained at Michigan, a research program? Kalkanis, Hoh, Sheth, Aghi all young(ish) attendings graduating from MGH, currently rising to the top of the national neurosurgery ranks, are they poor surgeons? This notion that you are a poor surgeon after graduating from research heavy programs doesn't seem to prove true when you look at the evidence, and that's coming from a resident at one of the often mentioned "superior technical training programs" on this site. We get our asses kicked with cases but I don't feel much better at hemicranis after my 300th than I did at my 100th.
OP if you want an honest opinion you'll still have the potential to become a great surgeon, that can be said about almost every program in the top 50 on doximity, but a lot will be expected out of you from a research perspective. If you have no interest in basic science that can make you an outcast among faculty leadership and it might make your time in residency harder. This is why you'll always hear us talk about "fit" during interviews. For example my program doesn't care much about research. I spend all my time in the OR, publish 1 or 2 retrospective studies a year, and no one bothers me. I prefer it that way. But if I woke up one day and wanted to find a way to get funding and some day start my own lab my department does not have many of those resources and it would be difficult.
I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
You've done 2500 cases and are still working on your subcuticular stitches?
I like how he disses MGH and then in the same breath he talks about struggling with stitching after 2500 cases. Can't even see the irony.
How did I diss MGH? I specifically stated that I have no experience with that program and cannot comment on their training. I never said I was struggling with stitching. I said perfecting. I don't know when one is supposed to stop learning from their cases but I know for a fact that once you decide that you have nothing to learn then you stop learning. Spetzler practiced surgical technique in the anatomy lab to the end of his career. What is the best suture to use for a sub q? Is it the one that your attending told you? Have you experimented with 4-0, 5-0, and 6-0 to see which one has the best appearance both in the or and also the slimmest scar in clinic weeks later? How do the edges look? I don't want a decent scar on my patients I want my scars to be the nicest looking so when these folks hop on their Facebook interest groups my incisions are the top cosmesis result as well as associated with the best possible surgical outcome.
Have you ever thought about scrubbing with a plastic surgeon to improve your suturing? The best appearance will depend on your particular motor skill peculiarities.
Posts: 664
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation:
6
(04-30-2021, 04:10 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-30-2021, 11:30 AM)Focus Wrote: (04-29-2021, 04:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-29-2021, 01:00 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2021, 06:56 PM)Focus Wrote: I have no direct experience with MGH so I am not commenting on that but if you don't feel better at hemicrani 300 than 100 then I wonder if you are making the most of the education that you are getting (or if some other factor is inhibiting you). As a resident at ~2500 cases now I can confidently say that I still feel that I am getting better with every case. Perhaps I am just a slower learner but if that's the case then for the slow learners out there you case volume and the experience you get during cases is a major factor in your polishing. I'm still learning from shunts and the occasional minor procedures that I do. For example lately I have been experimenting with the way I knot my subcuticular stitches to find the most consistently seamless look.
You've done 2500 cases and are still working on your subcuticular stitches?
I like how he disses MGH and then in the same breath he talks about struggling with stitching after 2500 cases. Can't even see the irony.
How did I diss MGH? I specifically stated that I have no experience with that program and cannot comment on their training. I never said I was struggling with stitching. I said perfecting. I don't know when one is supposed to stop learning from their cases but I know for a fact that once you decide that you have nothing to learn then you stop learning. Spetzler practiced surgical technique in the anatomy lab to the end of his career. What is the best suture to use for a sub q? Is it the one that your attending told you? Have you experimented with 4-0, 5-0, and 6-0 to see which one has the best appearance both in the or and also the slimmest scar in clinic weeks later? How do the edges look? I don't want a decent scar on my patients I want my scars to be the nicest looking so when these folks hop on their Facebook interest groups my incisions are the top cosmesis result as well as associated with the best possible surgical outcome.
Have you ever thought about scrubbing with a plastic surgeon to improve your suturing? The best appearance will depend on your particular motor skill peculiarities.
I'm fortunate to have the opportunity to scrub with them quite frequently with oculoplastics, and in fact working with them and observing their use of very fine dermal sutures is kind of my point that there's a very big difference between an incision that is within the standard of care and a truly excellent closure.
I'm very fortunate I don't overanalyse every little thing out there. And no, I clearly never learned from the best plastic surgeons in the world, but I think my incisions heal alright.
|
