Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie (Can J Surg)

Publisher: Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association

Journal description

Mission Statement: To contribute to the effective continuing medical education of Canadian surgical specialists, using innovative techniques when feasible, and to provide surgeons with an effective vehicle for the dissemination of observations in the areas of clinical and basic science research.

Current impact factor: 1.51

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 1.507
2013 Impact Factor 1.267
2012 Impact Factor 1.631
2011 Impact Factor 1.054
2010 Impact Factor 0.723
2009 Impact Factor 0.85
2008 Impact Factor 0.961
2007 Impact Factor 0.917
2006 Impact Factor 0.515
2005 Impact Factor 0.591
2004 Impact Factor 0.567
2003 Impact Factor 0.627
2002 Impact Factor 0.448
2001 Impact Factor 0.503
2000 Impact Factor 0.422
1999 Impact Factor 0.527
1998 Impact Factor 0.57
1997 Impact Factor 0.522
1996 Impact Factor 0.563
1995 Impact Factor 0.476
1994 Impact Factor 0.658
1993 Impact Factor 0.427
1992 Impact Factor 0.312

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 1.60
Cited half-life 7.70
Immediacy index 0.23
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.55
Website Canadian Journal of Surgery / Journal Canadien de Chirurgie website
Other titles Canadian journal of surgery (Online), Canadian journal of surgery, Journal canadien de chirurgie, CJS
ISSN 1488-2310
OCLC 45048853
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Canadian Medical Association

  • Pre-print
    • Author cannot archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Articles are placed in PubMed Central immediately on behalf of authors.
  • Classification
    ​ white

Publications in this journal

  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 10/2015; 58(5):015314-15314.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society has set out to improve patient recovery by developing evidence-based perioperative practices. Many institutions and other specialties have begun to apply their principles with great success; however, ERAS principles focus mostly on general surgery, and their applicability to other specialties, such as vascular surgery, is less clear. We sought to investigate the current standard of perioperative care in Canadian vascular surgery by assessing surgeons' perceptions of evidence supporting ERAS practices, identifying barriers to aligning them and identifying aspects of perioperative care that require research specific to vascular surgery before they could be broadly applied. Methods: We administered an online survey with 26 questions to all Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery members. Results: Respondents varied largely in perioperative practice, most notably in the use of nasogastric tubes, Foley catheters and neck drains. Familiarity with supporting evidence was poor. Approximately half (44%) of respondents were not familiar with contrary evidence, while those who were often perceived institutional barriers to change. Finally, one-third (30%) of respondents felt that relevant evidence did not exist to support changing their practice. Conclusion: The variability of perioperative practice in Canadian vascular surgery is likely due to multiple factors, including a lack of specific evidence. Further research in areas of perioperative vascular care where the current standard of practice varies most greatly may help improve recovery after vascular surgery in Canada over simply adopting existing ERAS principles.
    Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 10/2015; 58(5):013614-13614.
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 10/2015; 58(5):004315-4315.
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):292. DOI:10.1503/cjs.012315
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Over the past decade, revelations of inappropriate financial relationships between surgeons and surgical device manufacturers have challenged the presumption that surgeons can collaborate with surgical device manufacturers without damaging public trust in the surgical profession. We explored postoperative Canadian patients' knowledge and opinions about financial relationships between surgeons and surgical device manufacturers. Methods: This complex issue was explored using qualitative methods. We conducted semistructured face-to-face interviews with postoperative patients in follow-up arthroplasty clinics at an academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed. Patient-derived concepts and themes were uncovered. Results: We interviewed 33 patients. Five major themes emerged: 1) many patients are unaware of the existence of financial relationships between surgeons and surgical device manufacturers; 2) patients approve of financial relationships that support innovation and research but are opposed to relationships that involve financial incentives that benefit only the surgeon and the manufacturer; 3) patients do not support disclosure of financial relationships during the consent process as it may shift focus away from the more important risks; 4) patients support oversight at the professional level but reject the idea of government involvement in oversight; and 5) patients entrust their surgeons to make appropriate patient-centred choices. Conclusion: This qualitative study deepens our understanding of financial relationships between surgeons and industry. Patients support relationships with industry that provide potential benefit to current or future patients. They trust our ability to self-regulate. Disclosure combined with appropriate oversight will strengthen public trust in professional collaboration with industry.
    Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):323-9. DOI:10.1503/cjs.000815
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):296-8. DOI:10.1503/cjs.002415
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Delivering high-quality endoscopy services depends largely on the competence of endoscopists. General surgery residency training in endoscopy and the associated quality of endoscopy services being delivered by general surgeons have been the subject of considerable controversy. In conjunction with the Canadian Association of General Surgeons (CAGS) executive board, we formulated a survey to evaluate the general state of endoscopy practice and training among general surgeons in Canada. Methods: The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. General surgeons who are members of CAGS were selected to participate in the study and were emailed a link to the online questionnaire regarding the importance of endoscopy. They were asked to compare their training to resident training today. Results: Sixty-nine surveys were completed. The majority of general surgeons (95.7%) indicated that endoscopy was an important skill to possess, and more than 85.5% used endoscopy in their own practices. However, nearly half (46.4%) felt that general surgery endoscopy training in Canada is currently inadequate to produce competent endoscopists. The main qualitative themes emerging from the survey were the inadequacy of current postgraduate endoscopy training (37.5%) and the absence of standardization in training (25.0%). Conclusion: Endoscopy is considered integral to academic and community general surgeons' practices; however, the adequacy of training seems to be questioned. Postgraduate training in endoscopy needs to be formalized and standardized, with a greater emphasis placed on teaching endoscopy.
    Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):330-4. DOI:10.1503/cjs.015914
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):349-58. DOI:10.1503/cjs.017314
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):294-5. DOI:10.1503/cjs.001915
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: With modern advancements in preoperative imaging for liver surgery, intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) may be perceived as superfluous. Our aim was to determine if IOUS provides new information that changes surgical strategy in hepatic resection. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 121 consecutive liver resections performed at a single institution. Preoperative computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging determined the initial surgical strategy. The size, location and number of lesions were compared between IOUS and preoperative imaging. Reviewing the operative report helped determine if new IOUS findings led to changes in surgical strategy. Pathology reports were analyzed for margins. Results: Of 121 procedures analyzed, IOUS was used in 88. It changed the surgical plan in 15 (17%) cases. Additional tumours were detected in 10 (11%) patients. A change in tumour size and location were detected in 2 (2%) and 3 (4%) patients, respectively. Surgical plans were altered in 7 (8%) cases for reasons not related to IOUS. There was no significant difference (p = 0.74) in average margin length between the IOUS and non-IOUS groups (1.09 ± 1.18 cm v. 1.18 ± 1.05 cm). Conclusion: Surgical strategy was altered owing to IOUS results in a substantial number of cases, and IOUS-guided resection planes resulted in R0 resections in nearly all procedures. The best operative plan in hepatic resection includes IOUS.
    Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):318-22. DOI:10.1503/cjs.016914
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 09/2015; 58(5):293. DOI:10.1503/cjs.012815
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 08/2015; 58(4):220-1. DOI:10.1503/cjs.009915
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 08/2015; 58(4):223-4. DOI:10.1503/cjs.007915
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 08/2015; 58(4):001315-1315. DOI:10.1503/cjs.001315
  • Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 08/2015; 58(4):002015-2015. DOI:10.1503/cjs.002015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Orthopedic surgical education in Canada has seen major change in the last 15 years. Work hour restrictions and external influence have led to new approaches for surgical training. With a change toward competency-based educational models under the CanMEDS headings there is a need to ensure the validity of modern assessment methods. Our objective was to evaluate the reliability of a currently used surgical skill assessment tool within an orthopedic residency program, as measured by the Surgical Encounters Form. A surgical assessment tool has previously been created at our institution that comprises 15 items spanning 4 of the CanMEDS competencies. Results were blinded to the primary investigator and coded by a third party. The assessments were collected, and we measured percent agreement using Cronbach's α and Fleiss κ. Over a 5-month period 11 staff members assessed 10 residents. Eighty-eight assessments were completed in total. Weighted percent agreement was 90.9%. Cronbach's α averaged 0.865 for the medical expert role, 0.920 for technical skills, 0.934 for the communicator role, 1.00 for the collaborator role and 1.00 for the health advocate role. The mean Fleiss κ score was 0.147 (95% confidence interval -0.071 to 0.364), demonstrating low interrater reliability. Despite the development of a validated assessment tool to evaluate surgical skills acquisition, interrater reliability results suggest low levels of agreement among assessors.
    Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 08/2015; 58(4):010614-10614. DOI:10.1503/cjs.010614