Appraising the uptake and use of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations: A review of the literature

A Systematic Review to Summarise and Appraise the Reporting of Surgical Innovation: a Case Study in Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is an innovative alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches. Literature has been published investigating its safety/efficacy; however, the quality of reporting is uncertain. This systematic review used the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework to assess the reporting quality of available literature. A narrative summary was formulated, assessing how comprehensively governance/ethics, patient selection, demographics, surgeon expertise/training, technique description and outcomes were reported. Forty-seven studies published between 2005 and 2024 were included. There was incomplete/inconsistent reporting of governance/ethics, patient selection, surgeon expertise/training and technique description, with heterogenous outcome reporting. RRYGB reporting was poor and did not align with IDEAL guidance. Robust prospective studies reporting findings using IDEAL/other guidance are required to facilitate safe widespread adoption of RRYGB and other surgical innovations.

vNOTES retroperitoneal sentinel lymph node dissection for endometrial cancer staging: First multicenter, prospective case series

INTRODUCTION

The current standard treatment for endometrial cancer is a laparoscopic hysterectomy with adnexectomies and bilateral sentinel node resection. A retroperitoneal vNOTES sentinel node resection has several theoretical potential advantages. These include being less invasive, leaving no visible scars, operating without Trendelenburg, and therefore offering the anesthetic advantage of easier ventilation in obese patients and following the natural lymph node trajectory from caudally to cranially and therefore a lower risk of missing the sentinel node. The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of a retroperitoneal vNOTES approach to sentinel lymph node dissection for staging of endometrial cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective multicenter case series was performed in four hospitals. A total of 64 women with early-stage endometrial carcinoma suitable for surgical staging with sentinel lymph node removal were operated via a transvaginal retroperitoneal vNOTES approach. The paravesical space was entered through a vaginal incision after injecting the cervix with indocyanine green. A vNOTES port was placed into this space and insufflation of the retroperitoneum was performed. Sentinel lymph nodes were identified bilaterally using near-infrared light followed by endoscopic removal of these nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 64 women with early-stage endometrial cancer underwent sentinel lymph node removal by retroperitoneal vNOTES technique. All patients also underwent subsequent vNOTES hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The median age was 69.5 years, median total operative time was 126 min and the median estimated blood loss was 80 mL. In 97% of the cases bilateral sentinel nodes could be identified. A total of 60 patients had negative sentinel nodes, three had isolated tumor cells and one had macroscopically positive sentinel nodes. No complications with sequel occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective multicenter case series demonstrates the feasibility of the vNOTES approach for identifying and removing sentinel lymph nodes in women with endometrial carcinoma successfully and safely. vNOTES allows sole transvaginal access with exposure of the entire retroperitoneal space, following the natural lymph trajectory caudally to cranially, and without the need for a Trendelenburg position.

No frugal innovation without frugal evaluation: the Global IDEAL Sub-Framework

Objective

The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework Study aimed to combine the intended effects of the 2009/2019 IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) Framework recommendations on evaluating surgical innovation with the vision outlined by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery to provide recommendations for evaluating surgical innovation in low-resource environments.

Design

A mixture of methods including an online global survey and semistructured interviews (SSIs). Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using the Framework Method.

Participants

Surgeons and surgical researchers from any country.

Main outcome measures

Findings were used to suggest the nature of adaptations to the IDEAL Framework to address the particular problems of evaluation in low-resource settings.

Results

The online survey yielded 66 responses representing experience from 40 countries, and nine individual SSIs were conducted. Most respondents (n=49; 74.2%) had experience evaluating surgical technologies across a range of life cycle stages. Innovation was most frequently adopted based on colleague recommendation or clinical evaluation in other countries. Four themes emerged, centered around: frugal innovation in technological development; evaluating the same technology/innovation in different contexts; additional methodologies important in evaluation of surgical innovation in low/middle-income countries; and support for low-income country researchers along the evaluation pathway.

Conclusions

The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework provides suggestions for modified IDEAL recommendations aimed at dealing with the special problems found in this setting. These will require validation in a stakeholder consensus forum, and qualitative assessment in pilot studies. From assisting researchers with identification of the correct evaluation stage, to providing context-specific recommendations relevant to the whole evaluation pathway, this process will aim to develop a comprehensive and applicable set of guidance that will benefit surgical innovation and patients globally.

Examining the application of the IDEAL framework in the reporting and evaluation of innovative invasive procedures: secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The development of new surgical procedures is fundamental to advancing patient care. The Idea, Developments, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework describes study designs for stages of innovation. It can be difficult to apply due to challenges in defining and identifying innovative procedures. This study examined how the IDEAL framework is operationalised in real-world settings; specifically, the types of innovations evaluated using the framework and how authors justify their choice of IDEAL study design.

DESIGN

Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Citation searches (Web of Science and Scopus) identified studies following the IDEAL framework and citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies of invasive procedures/devices of any design citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

All relevant text was extracted. Three frameworks were developed, namely: (1) type of innovation under evaluation; (2) terminology used to describe stage of innovation and (3) reported rationale for IDEAL stage.

RESULTS

48 articles were included. 19/48 described entirely new procedures, including those used for the first time in a different clinical context (n=15/48), reported as IDEAL stage 2a (n=8, 53%). Terminology describing stage of innovation was varied, inconsistent and ambiguous and was not defined. Authors justified their choice of IDEAL study design based on limitations in published evidence (n=36) and unknown feasibility and safety (n=32) outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Identifying stage of innovation is crucial to inform appropriate study design and governance decisions. Authors' rationale for choice of IDEAL stage related to the existing evidence base or lack of sufficient outcome data for procedures. Stage of innovation was poorly defined with inconsistent descriptions. Further work is needed to develop methods to identify innovation to inform practical application of the IDEAL framework. Defining the concept of innovation in terms of uncertainty, risk and degree of evidence may help to inform decision-making.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate every stage of surgical innovation and generate high-quality research evidence, the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) framework was developed. This study aimed to explore the application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and identify factors limiting its dissemination.

METHODS

We conducted a citation search of 8 core IDEAL framework articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2009 to 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected articles related to hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1621 articles were identified through citation search. Following screening, 132 articles were finally retained, including 75 original studies (57%) and 57 secondary studies (43%). Of the original studies, only 10 articles (13%) accurately applied the IDEAL framework in methodology, distributed as follows: 1 in pre-IDEAL stage (0), 2 in Idea stage (1), 7 in Development stage (2a), 1 in Exploration stage (2b), and no articles in Assessment and Long-term study stages (3, 4). In the secondary studies, 36 articles (63%) mentioned and discussed the IDEAL framework, and all supported its application.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is increasingly widespread, as evidenced by its substantial citation in numerous articles. However, the utilization of the IDEAL framework remains predominantly confined to the early stages of innovation in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, coupled with instances of misapplication stemming from insufficient comprehension of the framework. Further efforts are necessary to extend the impact of the IDEAL framework and provide surgeons with comprehensive guidance for its judicious implementation.

Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation

Uterus transplantation (UTx) research has been introduced in several countries, with trials in Sweden and the United States producing successful outcomes. The growing interest in developing UTx trials in other countries, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, and Australia, raises important questions regarding the ethics of surgical innovation research in the field of UTx. This paper examines the current state of UTx in the context of the surgical innovation paradigm and IDEAL framework and discusses the ethical challenges faced by those considering the introduction of new trials. We argue that UTx remains an experimental procedure at a relatively early stage of the IDEAL framework, especially in the context of de novo trials, where protocols are likely to deviate from those used previously and where researchers are likely to have limited experience of UTx. We conclude that countries considering the introduction of UTx trials should build on the strengths of the reported outcomes to consolidate the evidence base and shed light on the uncertainties of the procedure. Authorities responsible for the ethical governance of UTx trials are advised to draw on the ethical framework used in the oversight of surgical innovation.

Robotic pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: a systematic review of videos and application of the IDEAL 2A framework

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in rectal cancer has gained increasing traction worldwide. Robotic LPLND is an emerging technique. Utilising the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment and long-term follow-up) framework for surgical innovation, robotic LPLND is currently at the IDEAL 2A stage (development) mainly limited to case reports, case series and videos. A systematic literature review was performed for videographic robotic LPLND. Pubmed, Ovid and Web of Science were searched with a predefined search strategy. The LapVEGAS score for peer review of video surgery was adapted for the robotic approach (RoVEGAS) and applied to measure video quality. Two reviewers independently reviewed videos and consensus reached on technical steps and learning points. Data are presented as a narrative synthesis of results. The IDEAL 2A framework was applied to videos to assess their content at the present stage of innovation. A total of 83 abstracts were identified. In accordance with the PRISMA statement, nine videos were analysed. Adherence to the complete IDEAL 2a framework was low. All videos demonstrated LPLND; however, reporting of clinical outcomes was heterogeneous and completed in six of nine videos. Histopathology was reported in six videos, with other outcomes variably reported. No videos presented patient-reported outcome measures. Two videos reported presence or absence of recurrence on follow-up. Video articles provide a valuable educational resource in dissemination and adoption of robotic techniques. Standardisation of reporting objectives are needed. Complete reporting of pathology and oncologic outcomes is required in videographic procedural-based publications to meet the IDEAL 2A framework criteria.

A standardized measurement instrument was recommended for evaluating operator experience in complex healthcare interventions

OBJECTIVE

During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators' experience of surgical innovation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators' experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group.

RESULTS

Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed 'psychological' experiences and 'usability'. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated 'sufficient' (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or 'indeterminate' (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument.

CONCLUSION

The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators' experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required.

Examining the empirical evidence for IDEAL 2b studies: the effects of preceding prospective collaborative cohort studies on the quality and impact of subsequent randomized controlled trials of surgical innovations – protocol for a systematic review and case–control analysis

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery face methodological challenges, which often result in low quality or failed trials. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework proposes preliminary prospective collaborative cohort studies with specific properties (IDEAL 2b studies) to increase the quality and feasibility of surgical RCTs. Little empirical evidence exists for this proposition, and specifically designed 2b studies are currently uncommon. Prospective collaborative cohort studies are, however, relatively common, and might provide similar benefits. We will, therefore, assess the association between prior ‘IDEAL 2b-like’ cohort studies and the quality and impact of surgical RCTs.

We propose a systematic review using two parallel case–control analyses, with surgical RCTs as subjects and study quality and journal impact factor (IF) as the outcomes of interest. We will search for surgical RCTs published between 2015 and 2019 and and prior prospective collaborative cohort studies authored by any of the RCT investigators. RCTs will be categorized into cases or controls by (1) journal (IF ≥or <5) and (2) study quality (PEDro score ≥or < 7). The case/control OR of exposure to a prior ‘2b like’ study will be calculated independently for quality and impact. Cases will be matched 1: 1 with controls by year of publication, and confounding by peer-reviewed funding, author academic affiliation and trial protocol registration will be examined using multiple logistic regression analysis.

This study will examine whether preparatory IDEAL 2b-like studies are associated with higher quality and impact of subsequent RCTs.

A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.

How to assess applicability and methodological quality of comparative studies of operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery

PURPOSE

It is challenging to generate and subsequently implement high-quality evidence in surgical practice. A first step would be to grade the strengths and weaknesses of surgical evidence and appraise risk of bias and applicability. Here, we described items that are common to different risk-of-bias tools. We explained how these could be used to assess comparative operative intervention studies in orthopedic trauma surgery, and how these relate to applicability of results.

METHODS

We extracted information from the Cochrane risk-of-bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I), and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria and derived a concisely formulated set of items with signaling questions tailored to operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery.

RESULTS

The established set contained nine items: population, intervention, comparator, outcome, confounding, missing data and selection bias, intervention status, outcome assessment, and pre-specification of analysis. Each item can be assessed using signaling questions and was explained using good practice examples of operative intervention studies in orthopedic trauma surgery.

CONCLUSION

The set of items will be useful to form a first judgment on studies, for example when including them in a systematic review. Existing risk of bias tools can be used for further evaluation of methodological quality. Additionally, the proposed set of items and signaling questions might be a helpful starting point for peer reviewers and clinical readers.

The Evolution of Retzius-Sparing Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: An IDEAL Perspective

PURPOSE

The Retzius-sparing (RS) approach represents an important surgical innovation in how robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is performed.The aim of this study was to examine to what extent its development has followed the Idea, Development, Evolution, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies up to the 18th of March 2021. Abstracted data-points included authorship, year of publication, study design, reported endpoints, and length-of follow-up. We mapped each study to the five IDEAL stages of surgical innovation using published criteria.

RESULTS

Of 415 references, 118 were included in our analysis. Five academic centers authored over 50% of all study reports, with the groups from Seoul (24; 20.3%), Milan (15; 12.7%) and Ninjang (10; 8.5%) being the main contributors. Approximately 40% of studies (50/118) were reported as full-text publications. Most of the reports mapped to retrospective studies (97/118; 82.2%) with approximately one-third (31/97; 32.0%) reporting the use of prospectively collected data. Cumulatively, 17,974 RS-RALP were reported on. Of those, 13,929 were unique cases. Approximately 23% of cases were reported in multiple publications (4,045/17,974). We mapped two, 12, and three studies to the Idea, Assessment and Long-term study stages, respectively, and zero to the Development and Evaluation stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Few reported studies followed the IDEAL stages for surgical innovation; none addressed the stages of Development and Evaluation. Future systematic, prospectively planned assessments would be helpful to refine the approach and address issues related to the surgical learning curve.

Understanding stage of innovation of invasive procedures and devices: protocol for a systematic review and thematic analysis

INTRODUCTION

Surgical innovation has generally occurred in an unstandardised manner. This has led to unnecessary exposure of patients to harm, research waste and inadequate evidence. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) Collaboration provided a set of recommendations for evaluating surgical innovations based on their stage of innovation. Despite further refinements and guidance, adoption of the IDEAL recommendations has been slow; an important reason may be that determining the stage of innovation is often difficult. To facilitate evaluation of surgical innovations, there is a need for a detailed insight into what stage of innovation means, and how it can be determined. The aim of this study is to understand the concept of stage of innovation as reported in the literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review is being conducted. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception until July 2021 using an iteratively developed strategy based on the concepts of stage of innovation, invasive procedures or devices and guidance. Articles were included if they described an approach to evaluating surgical innovations in stages, described a method for determining stage of innovation, described indicators of stage of innovation, defined stages or described potential sources of stage-related information. Conference abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Other articles were detected from citations within included articles and suggestions from experts in surgical innovation. Data will be extracted regarding approaches to evaluating surgical innovations, methods for determining stage of innovation, indicators of stage of innovation, definitions of stages and potential sources of stage-related information. A thematic analysis will be conducted, and findings summarised in a narrative report.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021270812.

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices.

HIGHLIGHTS

This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.

Systematic review of transanal total mesorectal excision literature according to the ideal framework: The evolution never ends

BACKGROUND

Designing studies to assess critically novel procedures can be challenging; thus, the process to achieve robust evidence is frequently problematic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if literature on transanal total mesorectal excision is evolving according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results framework.

METHODS

Literature on transanal total mesorectal excision was searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, and these variables were recorded: bibliometric data, design, corresponding author's nationality, number of patients enrolled, and Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (stage 0, stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4).

RESULTS

Out of 447 articles retrieved, 247 were selected (76.5% single center and 23.5% multicenter collaborations), including 35 reviews, 15 meta-analyses, 24 other publications, and 173 articles classified according to Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (19 stage 0, 27 stage 1, 111 stage 2, 7 stage 3, and 9 stage 4). Overall, impact factor produced was 634.10. Reviewing corresponding authors' nationalities, 32 countries were identified, with the United States, China, and the United Kingdom the most reported; nearly all were from the Northern Hemisphere. Publication of stage 3 and 4 articles started in 2014, whereas stage 0 and 1 articles were stably published over time. The number of patients increased in correspondence with the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (case series with >51 patients, respectively, 100.0% stage 3, 77.8% stage 4, and 33.3% stage 2, P = .005).

CONCLUSION

The number of stage 3 and 4 articles is still low; however, the technical innovation of transanal total mesorectal excision is a non-stop process with preclinical studies stably published over time.

Transanal versus conventional total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer using the IDEAL framework for implementation

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is an innovative technique for distal rectal cancer dissection. It has been shown to have similar short-term outcomes to conventional open and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (cTME), but recent studies have raised concern about increased morbidity and local recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes after TaTME versus cTME for rectal cancer.

Methods

TaTME was implemented in 2014 using IDEAL principles in a single institution. The institution maintains databases for all patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. This retrospective review compared data collected from all patients who had TaTME with those from a propensity-matched cohort of patients who underwent cTME. The primary outcome was a composite pathological measure combining margin status and quality of total mesorectal excision (TME). Short-term clinical and survival outcomes were also measured.

Results

Propensity matching created 109 matched pairs for analysis. Nine patients (8.3 per cent) undergoing TaTME had positive margins and/or incomplete TME, compared with 11 (10.5 per cent) undergoing cTME (P = 0.65). There were no significant differences in morbidity between the TaTME and cTME groups, including number of anastomotic leaks (13.8 versus 18.3 per cent; P = 0.37). The estimated 3-year local recurrence-free survival rate was 96.3 per cent in both groups (P = 0.39). Estimated 3-year overall (93.6 per cent for TaTME versus 94.5 per cent for cTME; P = 0.09) and disease-free (88.1 versus 76.1 per cent; P = 0.90) survival rates were similar.

Conclusion

TaTME provided similar outcomes to cTME for rectal cancer with the application of IDEAL principles.

The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines: A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage Specific Recommendations for Reporting the Evaluation of Surgical Innovation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to define reporting standards for IDEAL format studies.

BACKGROUND

The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations establish an integrated pathway for evaluation of new surgical techniques and complex therapeutic technologies. However guidance on implementation has been incomplete, and incorrect use is commonly seen. We describe the consensus development of reporting guidelines for the IDEAL stages, and plans for their dissemination and evaluation.

METHODS

Using the EQUATOR Network recommendations, participants with knowledge of IDEAL were surveyed to determine which IDEAL stages needed reporting guidelines. Draft checklists for stages 1, 2a, 2b, and 4 were subsequently developed by 3 researchers (N.B., A.H., P.M.), and revised through a 2-round Delphi consensus process. A final consensus teleconference resolved outstanding disagreements and clarified wording for checklist items.

RESULTS

Sixty-one participants completed the initial survey, a clear majority indicating that new reporting guidelines were needed for IDEAL Stage 1 (69.5%), Stage 2a (78%), Stage 2b (74.6%), and Stage 4 (66%). A proposed set of checklists was modified by survey participants in 2 online Delphi rounds (n = 54 and n = 47, respectively), resulting in a penultimate checklist for each stage. Fourteen expert working group members finalized the checklist items and successfully resolved any outstanding areas without agreement on a consensus call.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants familiar with IDEAL called for reporting guidelines for studies in all IDEAL stages except stage 3. The checklists developed have the potential to improve standards of reporting and thereby advance the quality of research on surgery and complex interventions and technologies, but require further evaluation in use.

Identifying research waste from surgical research: a protocol for assessing compliance with the IDEAL framework and recommendations

Introduction

Approximately £1130 billion was invested in research worldwide in 2016, and 9.6% of this was on biomedical research. However, about 85% of biomedical research investment is wasted. The Lancet published a series to identify five categories relating to research waste and in 2014. Some categories of research waste in surgery are avoidable by complying with the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework for it enables researchers to design, conduct and report surgical studies robustly and transparently. This review aims to examine the extent to which surgical studies adhered to the IDEAL framework and estimate the amount of overall research waste that could be avoided if compliance was improved.

Methods

We will search for potential studies published in English and between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 via PubMed. Teams of paired reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts independently. Two researchers will extract data from each paper. Data will be collected about general information and specialised information in each stage, and our IDEAL Compliance Appraisal tool will be used to analyse included studies. Descriptive statistics and χ² or Fisher’s exact tests for comparisons will be presented.

Discussion

Our study will provide important information about whether compliance with the specific IDEAL Recommendations has reduced research waste in surgical and therapeutic device studies. And we will identify particular key aspects that are worse and need to focus on improving those in future education.

The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was created to provide a structured way for assessing and evaluating novel surgical techniques and devices.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to investigate the utilization of the IDEAL framework within neurosurgery, and to identify factors influencing implementation.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of the 7 key IDEAL papers on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases (2009-2019) was performed. A second journal-specific search then identified additional papers citing the IDEAL framework. Publications identified were screened by two independent reviewers to select neurosurgery-specific articles.

RESULTS

The citation search identified 1336 articles. The journal search identified another 16 articles. Following deduplication and review, 51 relevant articles remained; 14 primary papers (27%) and 37 secondary papers (73%). Of the primary papers, 5 (36%) papers applied the IDEAL framework to their research correctly; two were aligned to the pre-IDEAL stage, one to the Idea and Development stages, and two to the Exploration stage. Of the secondary papers, 21 (57%) explicitly discussed the IDEAL framework. Eighteen (86%) of these were supportive of implementing the framework, while one was not, and two were neutral.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of the IDEAL framework in neurosurgery has been slow, particularly for early-stage neurosurgical techniques and inventions. However, the largely positive reviews in secondary literature suggest potential for increased use that may be achieved with education and publicity.

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for the evaluation of new surgical procedures and devices is inconsistent and lacks standardization. A core outcome set may promote the safe and transparent evaluation of surgical innovations. This systematic review examined outcome selection, measurement and reporting in studies conducted within the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring) framework to examine current practice and inform the development of a core outcome set for early-phase studies of surgical procedures/devices.

METHODS

Web of Science and Scopus citation searches were performed to identify author-reported IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies for any surgical procedure/device. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, including contextual information regarding outcome selection and measurement. Outcomes were categorized to inform a conceptual framework of outcome domains relevant to evaluating innovation.

RESULTS

Some 48 studies were identified. Outcome selection, measurement and reporting varied widely across studies in different IDEAL stages. From 1737 outcomes extracted, 22 domains specific to evaluating innovation were conceptualized under seven broad categories: procedure completion success/failure; modifications; unanticipated events; surgeons' experiences; patients' experiences; resource use specific to the innovative procedure/device; and other innovation-specific outcomes. Most innovation-specific outcomes were measured and reported in only a small number of studies.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted the need for guidance and standardization in outcome selection and reporting in the evaluation of new surgical procedures/devices. Novel outcome domains specific to innovation have been identified to establish a core outcome set for future evaluations of surgical innovations.

Lack of Regulations and Conflict of Interest Transparency of New Hernia Surgery Technologies

BACKGROUND

Medical devices introduced to market through the 510K process often have limited research of low quality and substantial conflict of interest (COI). By the time high-quality safety and effectiveness research is performed, thousands of patients may have already been treated by the device. Our aim was to systematically review the trends of outcomes, research quality, and financial relationships of published studies related to de-adopted meshes for ventral hernia repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature was systematically reviewed using PubMed to obtain all published studies related to three de-adopted meshes: C-QUR, Physiomesh, and meshes with polytetrafluoroethylene. Primary outcome was change in cumulative percentage of subjects with positive published outcomes. Secondary outcome was percentage of published manuscript with COI.

RESULTS

A total of 723 articles were screened, of which, 129 were analyzed and included a total of 8081 subjects. Percentage of subjects with positive outcomes decreased over time for all groups: (1) C-QUR from 100% in 2009 to 22% in 2018, (2) Physiomesh from 100% in 2011 to 20% in 2018, and (3) polytetrafluoroethylene from 100% in 1979 to 49% in 2018. Authors of only 20% of articles self-reported no COI, most representing later publications and were more likely to show neutral or negative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among three de-adopted meshes, early publications demonstrated overly optimistic results followed by disappointing outcomes. Skepticism over newly introduced, poorly proven therapies is essential to prevent adoption of misleading practices and products. Devices currently approved under the 510K processes should undergo blinded, randomized controlled trials before introduction to the market.

Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets for seamless, standardised evaluation of innovative surgical procedures and devices: a study protocol for content generation and a Delphi consensus process (COHESIVE study)

INTRODUCTION

Rigorous evaluation of innovative invasive procedures and medical devices is uncommon and lacks reporting standardisation. Devices may therefore enter routine practice without thorough evaluation, resulting in patient harm. Detailed guidance on how to select and report outcomes at each stage of evaluation is lacking. Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets (COS) is one strategy to promote safe and transparent evaluation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A COS, comprising outcome domains applicable to all phases of evaluation of procedure/device introduction and modification and, if necessary, supplementary domains relevant to specific phases or types of innovation (procedure or device), will be developed according to principles outlined by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently. The study will have the following three phases:1. Generation of a list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items identified from (a) published studies, (b) hospital policy documentation, (c) regulatory body documentation and (d) stakeholder qualitative interviews. Identified items/domains will be categorised using a conceptual framework and formatted into Delphi consensus survey questionnaire items.2. Key stakeholders, including 50 patients and 150 professionals (surgeons, researchers, device manufacturers, regulatory representatives, journal editors) sampled from multinational sources, will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each reporting item and outcome.3. A consensus meeting with key stakeholders will discuss and agree the final content of the reporting guidance and COS(s).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (18/NE/0378). Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, development of plain English summaries/materials, patient engagement events, development of a social media identity, workshops and other events.

Use of the IDEAL framework in the urological literature: where are we in 2018?

OBJECTIVES

To assess uptake and application of the IDEAL principles in original surgical procedure- or device-related clinical research studies, as well as its reported relevance as characterized by secondary publications, editorials and reviews.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) is a framework that provides stage-specific guidance for surgical innovation and represented a major advance towards raising evidential standards. We performed a comprehensive literature search of all urology-related publications citing one or more of seven key publications on IDEAL in The Lancet and BMJ using multiple databases up to 31 December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 150 urology-related manuscripts citing IDEAL, of which 83 (55.3%) were original research and 67 (44.7%) were secondary publications. Among the original research articles, 40 (48.2%) did not explicitly apply IDEAL principles or were not surgical innovation studies. The IDEAL phases of the 43 (51.8%) remaining original research studies were IDEAL, in nine (20.9%), 27 (62.8%), four (9.3%), 0 (0%), and three publications (7.0%), respectively. Across IDEAL stages, 30 (75.0%) studies were prospective, 29 (85.3%) reported ethical oversight, and 39 (90.7%) captured treatment-related harms. None of the studies collected information on physician experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The IDEAL framework has found widespread adoption in the urology literature as witnessed by a large number of original manuscripts and secondary publications citing IDEAL; however, its application is largely limited to the early stages of surgical innovation, frequently with inappropriate and incomplete implementation. Further efforts are needed to guide investigators in the optimal use of the IDEAL framework as it relates to surgical innovation in urology.