This istherefore a fundamental baseline upon which we can allwork to plan the future care of our patients. However,subsequent to the publication of these trials, there hasbeen an exceptional increase in the number of carotidendarterectomies in the UK, together with ongoing debatethat although this procedure may be clinically effective, itmight not be costeffective in terms of stroke prevention. Inaddition, the success of our interventional radiologicalcolleagues in undertaking ever more complexpercutaneous angioplasties has meant that the onceforbidden territory of carotid angioplasty is no longer out-of-bounds.When peripheral angioplasty was first introduced andgaining acceptance in the 1970s there was a groundswellof opinion that it could never work, was dangerous, andwould ultimately lead to vascular surgeons having toundertake further surgery to rectify problems. In fact, aswe all know such revisions have not happened, andwithout peripheral angioplasty many of us could not copewith current workloads. The present situation is thereforeanalogous to that facing cardiac surgeons and cardiologistsafter the introduction of coronary angioplasty. However,coronary angioplasty has now become acceptedcomplementary practice, and a similar open perspectiveneeds to be adopted by vascular surgeons with respect tothe future role of carotid angioplasty.When asked to justify their role in the management ofpatients with symptomatic cerebrovascular disease, mostvascular surgeons would claim that the place of carotidendarterectomy in selected patients has been indisputablyproven by international studies, despite the reluctance ofmany to actually participate in the trials. Subsequently,increased awareness of the fact that inadvertent technicalerror is probably the commonest cause of perioperativestroke has led vascular surgeons to review critically manyaspects of their care. Vascular surgeons have establishedpersonal, unit, and even national carotid endarterectomyaudit databases, and have actively embraced qualitycontrol assessment—the overall aim being to reduce theinitial operative risk to an absolute minimum. Forexample, if the initial operative risk could be reduced from7·5% to zero, the long-term reduction in relative strokerisk would increase from 44% to 75%. Vascular surgeonsalso face such difficulties in that they are (in most centres)ultimately responsible for clinical outcome and, in the rareevent of a postoperative complication, will ensure thatthere is no underlying remediable technical error requiringimmediate re-exploration (eg, carotid thrombectomy).Perhaps some vascular surgeons are therefore a littleindignant that should the radiologist experience a similarcomplication, they rarely have to speak to the patient’sfamily or indeed take the patient to theatre to rectify thesituation. There is also perhaps a quietly held view thatinterventional radiologists are acquiring all the interestingvascular procedures to the detriment of the vascularsurgeon, and if the sacred cow of carotid reconstruction isalso lost, then many may wonder what would be next.By contrast, interventional radiologists are surprised atthe perceived indignation of the vascular surgeons becausethe surgeons were also openly antagonistic towards theintroduction of the randomised trials of carotidendarterectomy. Moreover, interventional radiologistsnow feel that since publication of international trials somevascular surgeons have merely used the results to justifytheir own vascular practice and perhaps proceed withimpunity. For example, first, there is nothing to stop avascular surgeon who has not been trained in carotidsurgery from performing a carotid endarterectomy.Second, there is a tendency among vascular surgeons tocite the results of the international studies when askedabout the mortality or morbidity associated with thisprocedure. It is imperative that all vascular surgeons usetheir own personal and unit data when discussing relativerisks with patients. Similarly, vascular surgeons rarelydiscuss the potential for cranial nerve injury, perhapsbecause they do not like to admit that it occurs more oftenthan they would accept. Third, and on a similar theme,although surgeons generally have embraced audit, thereare still many units in which continuous carotid audit isnot undertaken and, moreover, the results are not open toscrutiny. There is also a perception that many consultantvascular surgeons do not like to take their higher surgicaltrainees through carotid endarterectomy because of thepotential for complications.Although the Vascular Surgical Society of Great Britainand Ireland has established a database of carotidcomplications, it is not obligatory to registercomplications, nor is the database universal. Accordingly,the overall results may not be as good as surgeons mighthope. That published results do not always reflect trueclinical practice was exemplified by Hsai and colleagues’report.