2
Medical Editor Malachi Sheahan III, MD Associate Medical Editors Bernadette Aulivola, MD | O. William Brown, MD | Elliot L. Chaikof, MD, PhD | Carlo Dall’Olmo, MD | Alan M. Dietzek MD, RPVI, FACS | Professor HansHenning Eckstein, MD | John F. Eidt, MD | Robert Fitridge, MD | Dennis R. Gable, MD | Linda Harris, MD | Krishna Jain, MD | Larry Kraiss, MD | Joann Lohr, MD | James McKinsey, MD | Joseph Mills, MD | Erica L. Mitchell, MD, MEd, FACS | Leila Mureebe, MD | Frank Pomposelli, MD | David Rigberg, MD | Clifford Sales, MD | Bhagwan Satiani, MD | Larry Scher, MD | Marc Schermerhorn, MD | Murray L. Shames, MD | Niten Singh, MD | Frank J. Veith, MD | Robert Eugene Zierler, MD Resident/Fellow Editor Christopher Audu, MD Executive Director SVS Kenneth M. Slaw, PhD Director of Marketing & Communications Bill Maloney Managing Editor SVS Beth Bales Marketing & Social Media Manager Kristin Crowe Communications Specialist Marlén Gomez
Published by BIBA Publishing, which is a subsidiary of BIBA Medical Ltd. Publisher Roger Greenhalgh Content Director Urmila Kerslake Managing Editor Bryan Kay bryan@bibamedical.com Editorial contribution Jocelyn Hudson, Will Date, Jamie Bell, Clare Tierney, Eva Malpass and Adam Pearce Design Terry Hawes Advertising Nicole Schmitz nicole@bibamedical.com Letters to the editor vascularspecialist@vascularsociety.org BIBA Medical, Europe 526 Fulham Road, London SW6 5NR, United Kingdom BIBA Medical, North America 155 North Wacker Drive – Suite 4250, Chicago, IL 60606, USA
Vascular Specialist is the official newspaper of the Society for Vascular Surgery and provides the vascular specialist with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and about the impact of healthcare policy. Content for Vascular Specialist is provided by BIBA Publishing. Content for the News From SVS is provided by the Society for Vascular Surgery. | The ideas and opinions expressed in Vascular Specialist do not necessarily reflect those of the Society or the Publisher. The Society for Vascular Surgery and BIBA Publishing will not assume responsibility for damages, loss, or claims of any kind arising from or related to the information contained in this publication, including any claims related to the products, drugs, or services, or the quality or endorsement of advertised products or services, mentioned herein. | The Society for Vascular Surgery headquarters is located at 9400 W. Higgins Road, Suite 315, Rosemont, IL 60018. | POSTMASTER: Send changes of address (with old mailing label) to Vascular Specialist, Subscription Services, 9400 W. Higgins Road, Suite 315, Rosemont, IL 60018. | RECIPIENT: To change your address, e-mail subscriptions@bibamedical.com | For missing issue claims, e-mail subscriptions@bibamedical. com. | Vascular Specialist (ISSN 1558-0148) is published monthly for the Society for Vascular Surgery by BIBA Publishing. | Printed by Vomela Commercial Group | ©Copyright 2023 by the Society for Vascular Surgery
Vascular Specialist | February 2023
GUEST EDITORIAL Likes, dislikes and reposts: The new age of the vascular surgery influencer By Jean Bismuth, MD, and Jonathan Cardella, MD
T
he brave new world of social media, with its TikToks and Kardashians, has now invaded our once-sane specialty. No, this is not a veiled reference to controversial swim attire events in our past, but rather a totally new phenomenon. Whether on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, or YouTube, vascular surgeons are posting their “successful” cases like never before. Why the constant need to do this... a cry for validation? Sometimes it appears to be a not-so-subtle show of support for a friendly vendor, as is evidenced by the “clot warriors,” posting dramatic lengths of coagulum in an effort to prove mine is bigger than yours. Could it be that vascular surgeons just don’t feel championed by their own specialty, and they’re in dire need of basic validation, a simple pat on the back? Is there such a void of mentorship in our chosen specialty? Do we need to practice in a stadium full of adoring fans, hanging on to every stitch and stent like the Rolling Stones at Wembley? If I sold tickets to my next tibial bypass, would fans crash the Ticketmaster website like the Swifties? The psychology of this phenomenon is curious. More than any specialty, vascular surgery is marred by complications. It’s the nature of the patients we treat. We treat very sick patients with difficult problems, and yet only successes are posted. Why not the failures? From our first days in surgery, we discovered that morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds are where we learn the most valuable lessons. A sensible surgeon will assess and reassess any complication incurred and apply rigor to all outcomes, even those that are viewed as successful. However, despite these lessons learned through our training and practice, there is still a need to “virtue signal” curated images and scenarios on social media and disregard any possible criticism that may be levied. Virtue signaling is loosely defined as attempting to show you are a good person, or in this case doctor, through the expression of viewpoints (using angiograms, CT scans, etc.), usually on social media. It’s concerning that as physicians, we carefully curate our best cases on social media, like others post luxurious Italian villas or diligently choreographed Cardi B dance moves. The psychology behind the need to have this external validation from the public, many of whom are unknown, is puzzling. One would suspect that good outcomes and happy patients would suffice for many, but it appears this is not the case. There are concerns about this from many angles. What message does this send to the public? Many will view these posts and assume validity based on the detail of the information provided. It is also concerning that this becomes an example for our trainees, many of whom also follow on social media, that this external validation is required as a means of attaining relevance and satisfaction in their careers. Finally, it is not a huge stretch to foresee the HIPAA violations created by the specificity and detail presented in these cases. Recently on LinkedIn, a vascular surgeon presented an absolute banality of a case—a cephalic arch recanalization and stenting. The waterfall of accolades was simply bewildering! Should it even matter that we all know that this will
fail? When I made a comment to that effect and suggested a surgical alternative, I was sent an old article with a small series of cases where patients were treated successfully with stent-grafts. The surgeon also made a somewhat snide comment that he only believed in randomized controlled trials, and that this was an endovascular forum. This individual evidently failed to see the irony of his comment, but the absurdity naturally did not escape me. Of course, further interaction was futile. So the question begs, why post a case if it is not to engage in an open discussion about pros and cons? Is it really so basic that the person posting is merely petitioning for some emoticons that reinforce their greatness or dispel their insecurities? A stent-graft deployed in front of an army of fans where none dare to question the decision-making, regardless of the outcome? It may be somewhat naïve to exJean Jonathan pect surgeons to be transparent about Bismuth Cardella their motivations for presenting cases. It would be helpful, though, to know the surgeon’s incentives behind their posts—no different than a disclosure slide in a presentation at a conference. Perhaps, before an intervention video on Twitter, a post should warn that DR. SIMPSON IS POSTING THIS AWESOME CASE IN THE HOPES THAT YOU WILL CALL HIM AWESOME. Or maybe: DR. CLARK WOULD LIKE TO DECLARE THAT HE HAS ONLY RECEIVED RUDIMENTARY ENDOVASCULAR TRAINING BUT PLEASE SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON!!!! Should we suggest that fact-checkers evaluate cases posted for value and accuracy? In reality, we should be able to police ourselves without resorting to any sort of censuring. Still, one should be concerned about what is posted on social media, a public platform. In the time It is also crystal clear that the Federal Trade Commission preceding social (FTC) has very explicit guidelines on how to manage dismedia, these closures when networking on social media If you have any cases would continue in financial interest with a brand… disclose it! As a surgeon on anonymity unless submitted, peer- social media, you are an influencer because posts influence consumers (other physicians, patients). Don’t pretend to reviewed, and published in hide under the guise of a clinician, particularly when moa journal tives are not transparent. In the time preceding social media, these cases would continue in anonymity unless submitted, peer-reviewed, and published in a journal where they can be consumed by people familiar with the procedures at hand. In the social media era, the very key point of peer review is missing, allowing any charlatan to publish results and claims that may or may not have any academic or physiologic basis. This, again, gets back to motivation and disclosure. Is the incentive to garner social media “likes” in order to further promotion? Job security? Reputation? Financial gains from corporations? By circumventing the peer-review process, this arena has become the Wild Wild West. There are snake oil salespeople everywhere. The misuse of social media has certainly not gone un-
continued on page 4
UC2022