Skip to main content
SMFM 2026 Pregnancy Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Additional registration fee required
Additional registration fee required
Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session
Faculty have requested this content not be shared outside of the session
CME Credit Offered
CME Credit Offered
Abstract Award
Abstract Award
Recording available 2/16-5/2
Recording available 2/16-5/2
AIUM Credit
AIUM Credit
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee
Poster Icons
Abstract Award
Abstract Award
Foundation Awardee
Foundation Awardee

Poster Session 3

Category: Education/Simulation

Poster Session 3

(960) Maternal Fetal Medicine Fellow Interest in a Formalized Complex Obstetric Surgery Fellowship Track

Thursday, February 12, 2026
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM  
Objective:
To assess Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellows’ interest in a formalized complex obstetric surgery track within the MFM fellowship, perspectives on training for obstetric surgical emergencies, and comfort with cesarean hysterectomy.

Study Design:
A cross-sectional survey of fellows enrolled in ACGME-accredited MFM fellowships in the U.S. The primary outcome was fellow interest in a formalized surgical training track. Secondary outcomes included training environment, surgical exposure, and comfort with cesarean hysterectomy. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used to evaluate associations between training setting and fellow-reported outcomes.

Results:
A total of 133 (63.3%) fellows responded to the survey (PGY5: 41%, PGY6: 33%, PGY7: 26%). Most trained at university-based programs (95%), with representation across all CDC-defined regions. Overall, 81 (60.9%) expressed interest in a formal MFM surgical track. While 85 (63.9%) felt comfortable independently performing a cesarean hysterectomy, only 53 (39.8%) felt comfortable accepting a post-fellowship position requiring on-call surgical backup. Surgical training was rated excellent or good by only 53% of the respondents. When asked who would be called for backup during cesarean hysterectomy, 74 (55.6%) reported non-MFM (gynecologic oncology or other) while 59 (44.4%) reported MFM faculty. MFM involvement in institutional surgical backup was significantly associated with fellow comfort independently performing hysterectomy (p< 0.01), comfort accepting a surgical backup role post-fellowship (p< 0.01), perceived training quality (p< 0.01), and interest in a surgical track (p=0.03).  

Conclusion:
A majority of MFM fellows express interest in a formalized surgical training track, with a variable comfort with cesarean hysterectomy. Institutional involvement of MFM in surgical backup is strongly associated with increased confidence and interest in advanced training, supporting the development of a formalized surgical track within MFM fellowship programs.