Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques?

Clinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review

BACKGROUND

It is common for doctors to engage in clinical innovation-i.e. to use novel interventions that differ from standard practice, and that have not yet been shown to be safe or effective according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine-in the belief that this will benefit their patients. Clinical innovation is currently poorly defined and lacks cohesive oversight mechanisms.

METHODS

A systematic narrative review, with the aim of identifying areas of similarity and divergence in innovation ethics frameworks developed across different medical specialties.

RESULTS

47 articles were included in the review. Few ethical issues raised by the ethics frameworks appear to be unique to distinct areas of practice. While variations exist in the oversight mechanisms suggested, these are again not specific to areas of practice, but rather reflect either cautious or more permissive attitudes towards clinical innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable overlap amongst ethics frameworks developed for use in diverse areas of practice. This reflects a tendency to treat innovative interventions in each area of practice as "exceptional" and a failure to develop "higher order" frameworks such as those that have been developed for research. Those involved in the oversight of clinical innovation need to aim for a balance between exceptionalism and harmonisation.

Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies

BACKGROUND

The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval.

RESULTS

Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.

Broad support for regulating the clinical implementation of future reproductive techniques

STUDY QUESTION

Do gynaecologists, infertile patients and the general public, consider that regulation of the clinical implementation of stem cell-based fertility treatments is required?

SUMMARY ANSWER

There is broad support from gynaecologists, patients and the general public for regulating the clinical implementation of future stem cell-based fertility treatments.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

There is debate on the need to regulate the clinical implementation of novel techniques. Regulation may hinder their swift adoption and delay benefits for patients, but may prevent the implementation of ineffective or harmful techniques. Stem cell-based fertility treatments, which involve creating oocytes or spermatozoa by manipulating stem cells, are likely to be implemented in clinical practice in the near future and will probably impact future generations as well as the current one.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among gynaecologists working in fertility clinics (n = 179), patients with severe infertility (n = 348) and a representative sample of the general public (n = 1250). The questionnaire was disseminated in the Netherlands in the winter of 2015-2016.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The newly developed questionnaire was reviewed by experts and tested among the general public. The questionnaire assessed whether participants wanted each of nine potential negative consequences of the clinical implementation of stem cell-based fertility treatments to be regulated. In addition, the importance of all negative and positive potential consequences, the appropriate regulatory body and its need to consult with advisors from various backgrounds was questioned.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 958 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate: 54%). A large majority of each participant group (>85%) wanted regulation, for at least one potential negative consequence of the clinical implementation of stem cell-based fertility treatments. The majority of all participant groups wanted regulation for serious health risks for intended parents, serious health risks for children and the disposal of human embryos. Regulation for out-of-pocket costs and the burden of treatment received little support. The majority of gynaecologists and the general public, but not the patients, requested regulation for the risk of minor congenital abnormalities, the success rates and the naturalness of treatments. Nevertheless, the majority of patients did consider the former two potential negative consequences important. The majority of all groups preferred a national bioethics committee as the regulatory body. This committee should consult with advisors from various backgrounds and should consider the broader context of potential consequences of the stem cell-based fertility treatments.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This empirical study focuses on only three stakeholder groups. This study reports on the perspective of the majority and this is not per definition the morally right perspective. The transferability of our findings to other cultures and other techniques remains unclear.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A national bioethics committee, consulting with advisors from various backgrounds, should regulate the clinical implementation of future stem cell-based fertility treatments. Whether this broad support for regulation applies to novel techniques from other fields of medicine should be examined.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The Young Academy of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons

STUDY QUESTION

What are the reasons for or against the future clinical application of germline genome modification (GGM)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A total of 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

GGM is still unsafe and insufficiently effective for clinical purposes. However, the progress made using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)- CRISPR-associated system (Cas) has led scientists to expect to overcome the technical hurdles in the foreseeable future. This has invited a debate on the socio-ethical and legal implications and acceptability of clinical applications of GGM. However, an overview of the reasons presented in this debate is missing.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

MEDLINE was systematically searched for articles published between January 2011 and June 2016. Articles covering reasons for or against clinical application of intentional modification of the nuclear DNA of the germline were included.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Two researchers independently extracted the reported reasons from the articles and grouped them into categories through content analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The systematic search yielded 1179 articles and 180 articles were included. Most papers were written by professionals in ethics, (science) journalism and biomedical sciences. Overall, 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for, and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. None of the included articles mentioned more than 60/169 reasons. The reasons could be categorized into: (i) quality of life of affected individuals; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness; (iv) existence of a clinical need or alternative; (v) costs; (vi) homo sapiens as a species (i.e. relating to effects on our species); (vii) social justice; (viii) potential for misuse; (ix) special interests exercising influence; (x) parental rights and duties; (xi) comparability to acceptable processes; (xii) rights of the unborn child; and (xiii) human life and dignity. Considerations relating to the implementation processes and regulation were reported.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We cannot ensure completeness as reasons may have been omitted in the reviewed literature and our search was limited to MEDLINE and a 5-year time period.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Besides needing (pre)clinical studies on safety and effectiveness, authors call for a sound pre-implementation process. This overview of reasons may assist a thorough evaluation of the responsible introduction of GGM.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

University of Amsterdam, Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (I.D.), and Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (S.H.). There are no competing interests.

Human cadavers to evaluate prototypes of minimally invasive surgical instruments: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

New technology should be extensively tested before it is tried on patients. Unfortunately representative models are lacking. In theory, fresh frozen human cadavers are excellent models.

OBJECTIVE

To identify strengths and weaknesses of fresh frozen human cadavers as research models for new technology prior to implementation in gynecological surgery.

METHODS

During pre-clinical validation studies regarding the MobiSep uterine manipulator, test procedures were performed on fresh frozen cadavers. Both the experimental setup as the performance of the prototype were assessed.

RESULTS

Five tests including six human cadavers were performed. Major changes were made to the MobiSep prototype design. The cadavers of two tests closely resembled surgical experiences as found in live patients. The anatomy of 4 of the 6 cadavers was not fully representative due to atrophy of the internal genitalia caused by age and due to the presence of pathology such extensive tumorous tissue.

CONCLUSION

The cadaver tests provided vital information regarding design and functionality, that failed to emerge during the in-vitro testing. However, experiments are subject to anatomical uncertainties or restrictions. Consequently, the suitability of a cadaver should be carefully assessed before it is used for testing new technology.

Responsible surgical innovation and research in maternal-fetal surgery

The field of maternal-fetal intervention is rapidly evolving with new technologies and innovations. This raises complex ethical and medico-legal challenges related to what constitutes innovative treatment versus human experimentation, with or without the umbrella of "medical research." There exists a gray zone between these black and white classifications, but there are also clear guidelines that should be responsibly negotiated when making the essential transition between an innovative treatment and a validated therapy. This review attempts to define some of the current and future ethical challenges in maternal-fetal research, and to offer constructive insight into how they might be addressed.

Ethics Oversight Mechanisms for Surgical Innovation: A Systematic and Comparative Review of Arguments

Surgical innovation typically falls under the purview of neither conventional clinical ethics nor research ethics. Due to a lack of oversight for surgical innovation-combined with a potential for significant risk-a wide range of arguments has been advanced in the literature to support or undermine various oversight mechanisms. To scrutinize the argumentation surrounding oversight options, we conducted a systematic review of published arguments. We found that the arguments are typically grounded in common sense and speculation instead of evidence. Presently, the justification or superiority for any single oversight mechanism for surgical innovation cannot be established convincingly. We suggest ways to improve the argument-based literature and discuss the value of systematic reviews of arguments and reasons.

Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review

The aim of the present article was to systematically review the ethics of surgical innovation and introduce the components of the learning health care system to guide future research and debate on surgical innovation.Although the call for evidence-based practice in surgery is increasingly high on the agenda, most surgeons feel that the format of the randomized controlled trial is not suitable for surgery. Innovation in surgery has aspects of, but should be distinguished from both research and clinical care and raises its own ethical challenges.To answer the question "What are the main ethical aspects of surgical innovation?", we systematically searched PubMed and Embase. Papers expressing an opinion, point of view, or position were included, that is, normative ethical papers.We included 59 studies discussing ethical aspects of surgical innovation. These studies discussed 4 major themes: oversight, informed consent, learning curve, and vulnerable patient groups. Although all papers addressed the ethical challenges raised by surgical innovation, surgeons hold no uniform view of surgical innovation, and there is no agreement on the distinction between innovation and research. Even though most agree to some sort of oversight, they offer different alternatives ranging from the formation of new surgical innovation committees to establishing national registries. Most agree that informed consent is necessary for innovative procedures and that surgeons should be adequately trained to assure their competence to tackle the learning curve problem. All papers agree that in case of vulnerable patients, alternatives must be found for the informed consent procedure.We suggest that the concept of the learning health care system might provide guidance for thinking about surgical innovation. The underlying rationale of the learning health care system is to improve the quality of health care by embedding research within clinical care. Two aspects of a learning health care system might particularly enrich the necessary future discussion on surgical innovation: integration of research and practice and a moral emphasis on "learning activities." Future research should evaluate whether the learning health care system and its adjacent moral framework provides ethical guidance for evidence-based surgery.

A new approach to simplify surgical colpotomy in laparoscopic hysterectomy

New surgical techniques and technology have simplified laparoscopic hysterectomy and have enhanced the safety of this procedure. However, the surgical colpotomy step has not been addressed. This study evaluates the surgical colpotomy step in laparoscopic hysterectomy with respect to difficulty and duration. Furthermore, it proposes an alternative route that may simplify this step in laparoscopic hysterectomy. A structured interview, a prospective cohort study, and a problem analysis were performed regarding experienced difficulty and duration of surgical colpotomy in laparoscopic hysterectomy. Sixteen experts in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery from 12 hospitals participated in the structured interview using a 5-point Likert scale. The colpotomy in LH received the highest scores for complexity (2.8 ± 1.2), compared to AH and VH. Colpotomy in LH was estimated as more difficult than in AH (2.8 vs 1.4, p < .001). In the cohort study, 107 patients undergoing LH were included. Sixteen percent of the total procedure time was spent on colpotomy (SD 7.8 %). BMI was positively correlated with colpotomy time, even after correcting for longer operation time. No relation was found between colpotomy time and blood loss or uterine weight. The surgical colpotomy step in laparoscopic hysterectomy should be simplified as this study demonstrates that it is time consuming and is considered to be more difficult than in other hysterectomy procedures. A vaginal approach to the colpotomy is proposed to achieve this simplification.

Surgical innovation-enhanced quality and the processes that assure patient/provider safety: A surgical conundrum

Innovation is a crucial part of surgical history that has led to enhancements in the quality of surgical care. This comprises both changes which are incremental and those which are frankly disruptive in nature. There are situations where innovation is absolutely required in order to achieve quality improvement or process improvement. Alternatively, there are innovations that do not necessarily arise from some need, but simply are a new idea that might be better. All change must assure a significant commitment to patient safety and beneficence. Innovation would ideally enhance patient care quality and disease outcomes, as well stimulate and facilitate further innovation. The tensions between innovative advancement and patient safety, risk and reward, and demonstrated effectiveness versus speculative added value have created a contemporary "surgical conundrum" that must be resolved by a delicate balance assuring optimal patient/provider outcomes. This article will explore this delicate balance and the rules that govern it. Recommendations are made to facilitate surgical innovation through clinical research. In addition, we propose options that investigators and institutions may use to address competing priorities.

The First Decade of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States: Costs and Outcomes Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains an uncommon procedure, and the safety and efficacy remain uncertain beyond single institution case series. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes and costs between laparoscopic (LPD) and open PD (OPD) using a large population-based database.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (a sample of approximately 20 % of all hospital discharges) was analyzed to identify patients who underwent PD from 2000 to 2010. Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, inflation-adjusted total charges, and complications were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Hospitals were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH) if more than 20 PD (open and laparoscopic) were performed annually, while those performing fewer than 20 PD were classified as low-volume hospitals.

RESULTS

Of the 15,574 PD identified, 681 cases were LPD (4.4 %). Compared to OPD, patients who underwent LPD were slightly older (65 vs. 67 years; p = 0.001) and were more commonly treated at HVH (56.6 vs. 66.1 %; p < 0.001). Higher rates of complications were observed in OPD than LPD (46 vs. 39.4 %; p = 0.001), though mortality rates were comparable (5 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.27). Inflation-adjusted median hospital charges were similar between OPD and LPD ($87,577 vs. $81,833, p = 0.199). However, hospital stay was slightly longer in the OPD group compared to LPD group (12 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001). Stratifying outcomes by hospital volume, LPD at HVH resulted in shorter hospital stays (9 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001), which translated into significantly lower median hospital charges ($76,572 vs. $106,367, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to fears regarding the potential for compromised outcomes early in the learning curve, LPD morbidity in its first decade is modestly reduced, while hospital costs are comparable to OPD. In high-volume pancreatic hospitals, LPD is associated with a reduction in length of stay and hospital costs.

Disclosure, consent, and the exercise of patient autonomy in surgical innovation: a systematic content analysis of the conceptual literature

The classification of surgical innovation as clinical care, research, or as third distinct type of activity creates ambiguity which impacts standards for disclosure and informed consent. We conducted a systematic review of the conceptual literature to identify positions expressed about consent and disclosure, as well as major tension points associated with this issue. Literature overwhelmingly favors special consent and disclosure. Four major tension points were identified: the use of biasing/biased terminology to characterize innovation; patient vulnerability; the relationship between surgeon-innovator and patient; and practices and associated gaps related to consent and disclosure. Recommendations often focused on the informed consent process.

Quackery or quality: the ethicolegal basis for a legislative framework for medical innovation

Innovative therapy is a matter of recent public interest, particularly following Lord Saatchi's Medical Innovation Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to encourage responsible innovation in medical treatment. We argue for the need to achieve a balance between the risks of medical innovation and patient safety considerations. We make the case for statutory regulation of medical innovation on the basis of responsible innovation, choice and patient-centred care. At the heart of regulation of medical innovation is care delivered by a process which is accountable, transparent and allows full consideration of all relevant matters. This paper proposes a two-stage test (to assess applicability of medical innovation as well as suitability for the choice of intervention to be undertaken). It is suggested that this model would provide safeguards for patients as well as define limits for doctors in the context of innovative therapy. Implementation and application of such therapy must be underpinned by due process and governance oversight, which could be provided through context-specific professional peer review. A combination of these ethicolegal principles would permit responsible medical innovation and maximise benefit in terms of therapy and patient-centred care.

Innovation in surgical technology and techniques: Challenges and ethical issues

The pace of medical innovation continues to increase. The deployment of new technologies in surgery creates many ethical challenges including how to determine safety of the technology, what is the timing and process for deployment of a new technology, how are patients informed before undergoing a new technology or technique, how are the outcomes of a new technology evaluated and how are the responsibilities of individual patients and society at large balanced. Ethical considerations relevant to the implementation of ECMO and robotic surgery are explored to further discussion of how we can optimize the delicate balance between innovation and regulation.

Surgical innovation and quality assurance: Can we have both?

Innovation is the major force for progress in pediatric surgery. Most of the progress in surgery has evolved secondary to novel approaches developed by surgeons confronted with difficult pathologic conditions. Up to the present time, most surgical innovation has been practiced with few rules for guidance. Innovation to make surgical procedures more effective and less morbid is highly desirable. However, the absence of oversight has the potential to lead to unbridled human experimentation. The quality improvement movement in medicine is attempting to improve outcomes using evidence-based clinical pathways. Quality improvement aims to decrease the variation in therapeutic approaches by scientifically defining best practices. There is a significant potential for autonomous surgical innovators to clash with well-meaning proponents of quality improvement. A suggested remedy to encourage surgical innovators while protecting patients from unintended harm is for institutions to develop Surgical Innovation Committees to evaluate and give oversight to the early application of new techniques and devices. Scientific evaluation under the auspices of an IRB should follow when feasible.

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

Systematic review of surgical innovation reporting in laparoendoscopic colonic polyp resection

Background

The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) proposes a staged assessment of surgical innovation, but whether it can be used in practice is uncertain. This study aimed to review the reporting of a surgical innovation according to the IDEAL framework.

Methods

Systematic literature searches identified articles reporting laparoendoscopic excision for benign colonic polyps. Using the IDEAL stage recommendations, data were collected on: patient selection, surgeon and unit expertise, description of the intervention and modifications, outcome reporting, and research governance. Studies were categorized by IDEAL stages: 0/1, simple technical preclinical/clinical reports; 2a, technique modifications with rationale and safety data; 2b, expanded patient selection and reporting of both innovation and standard care outcomes; 3, formal randomized controlled trials; and 4, long-term audit and registry studies. Each stage has specific requirements for reporting of surgeon expertise, governance details and outcome reporting.

Results

Of 615 abstracts screened, 16 papers reporting outcomes of 550 patients were included. Only two studies could be put into IDEAL categories. One animal study was classified as stage 0 and one clinical study as stage 2a through prospective ethical approval, protocol registration and data collection. Studies could not be classified according to IDEAL for insufficient reporting details of patient selection, relevant surgeon expertise, and how and why the technique was modified or adapted.

Conclusion

The reporting of innovation in the context of laparoendoscopic colonic polyp excision would benefit from standardized methods.

Multi-criteria development and incorporation into decision tools for health technology adoption

PURPOSE

When introducing new health technologies, decision makers must integrate research evidence with local operational management information to guide decisions about whether and under what conditions the technology will be used. Multi-criteria decision analysis can support the adoption or prioritization of health interventions by using criteria to explicitly articulate the health organization's needs, limitations, and values in addition to evaluating evidence for safety and effectiveness. This paper seeks to describe the development of a framework to create agreed-upon criteria and decision tools to enhance a pre-existing local health technology assessment (HTA) decision support program.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The authors compiled a list of published criteria from the literature, consulted with experts to refine the criteria list, and used a modified Delphi process with a group of key stakeholders to review, modify, and validate each criterion. In a workshop setting, the criteria were used to create decision tools.

FINDINGS

A set of user-validated criteria for new health technology evaluation and adoption was developed and integrated into the local HTA decision support program. Technology evaluation and decision guideline tools were created using these criteria to ensure that the decision process is systematic, consistent, and transparent.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This framework can be used by others to develop decision-making criteria and tools to enhance similar technology adoption programs.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The development of clear, user-validated criteria for evaluating new technologies adds a critical element to improve decision-making on technology adoption, and the decision tools ensure consistency, transparency, and real-world relevance.

Informed consent for innovative surgery: a survey of patients and surgeons

BACKGROUND

Unlike new drugs and medical devices, most surgical procedures are developed outside clinical trials and without regulatory oversight. Surgical professional organizations have discussed how new procedures should be introduced into practice without agreement on what topics informed consent discussions must include. To provide surgeons with more specific guidance, we wanted to determine what information patients and surgeons consider essential to disclose before an innovative surgical procedure.

METHODS

Of those approached, 85 of 113 attending surgeons and 383 of 541 adult postoperative patients completed surveys; responses to the surveys were 75% and 71%, respectively. Using a 6-point Likert scale, participants rated the importance of discussing 16 types of information preoperatively for 3 techniques (standard open, laparoscopic, robotic) offered for a hypothetic partial hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Compared with surgeons, patients placed more importance on nearly all types of information, particularly volumes and outcomes. For all 3 techniques, approximately 80% of patients indicated that they could not decide on surgery without being told whether it would be the surgeon's first time doing the procedure. When considering an innovative robotic surgery, a clear majority of both patients and surgeons agreed that it was essential to disclose the novel nature of the procedure, potentially unknown risks and benefits, and whether it would be the surgeon's first time performing the procedure.

CONCLUSION

To promote informed decision-making and autonomy among patients considering innovative surgery, surgeons should disclose the novel nature of the procedure, potentially unknown risks and benefits, and whether the surgeon would be performing the procedure for the first time. When accurate volumes and outcomes data are available, surgeons should also discuss these with patients.

Observation of health technologies after their introduction into clinical practice: a systematic review on data collection instruments

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Early assessment of health technologies after they are covered by the health system is deemed crucial to promptly identify and analyse unforeseen problems that may arise when these are used in real world settings. This paper aims to describe the various instruments which could be used for collecting information intended for prospective observation of health technologies, so as to choose the specific instrument best suited to each context.

METHODS

Systematic review of the medical literature aimed at retrieving general reference documents on data collection instruments for post-introduction observation of health technologies. A purpose-designed systematic bibliographic search was elaborated for the main three data collection instruments identified.

RESULTS

The three instruments are briefly described along with the main results of the studies retrieved, in terms of the advantages, drawbacks and considerations to be borne in mind when it comes to use these tools in post-introduction observation of new technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, the most appropriate data collection method for conducting post-introduction observation of new technologies is the use of prospective clinical registries. Electronic clinical records may replace clinical registries in the near future, but currently there are still many doubts as to the quality of the information retrieved.

Trends in the utilization and impact of radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) appears to be increasingly used. The nationwide use and impact of RFA have not been well characterized.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed an historical cohort study of US patients 18 years old and older, with a diagnosis of HCC (n = 22,103) using the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) limited-use database (1998 to 2005). Main outcomes measures were receipt of different therapeutic interventions (ablation, RFA, resection, or transplantation) and adjusted 1- and 2-year survivals.

RESULTS

A total of 4,924 (22%) patients underwent any intervention, with a 93% increase over the 8-year study period (trend test, p < 0.001). RFA accounted for 43% of this increase. Despite increased use of therapeutic interventions, 1- and 2-year survival rates did not improve over time for patients in the study cohort (48% and 34%, 52% and 37%, 50% and 36%; in 1998, 2002, and 2004, respectively; p = 0.31). Among patients with solitary lesions, adjusted 1- and 2-year survivals remained stable over time after transplantation (97% and 94%, 95% and 89%, 94% and 86% in 1998, 2002, and 2004, respectively; p = 0.99) and RFA (86% and 64%, 76% and 54%, in 2002 and 2004, respectively; p = 0.97), but improved after resection (83% and 71%, 91% and 84%, 97% and 94% in 1998, 2002, and 2004, respectively; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of interventions for the treatment of HCC, and specifically RFA, have markedly increased over time. Because increased use of RFA among patients with potentially resectable disease is likely to occur, and because of a lack of high-level evidence supporting expanded indications, continued evaluation of the indications for RFA and subsequent outcomes among US patients is warranted.

EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Under the mandate of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) a guideline on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery has been developed. The primary focus of this guideline is patient safety, efficacy, and effectiveness.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to develop recommendations for the assessment and introduction of surgical innovations. A consensus development conference (CDC) took place in May 2009 using the method of a nominal group process (NGP). The recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Prague, Czech Republic, on June 18th, 2009 for discussion and further input. After further Delphi processes between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon.

RESULTS

The development and implementation of innovations in surgery are addressed in five sections: (1) definition of an innovation, (2) preclinical and (3) clinical scientific development, (4) scientific approval, and (5) implementation along with monitoring. Within the present guideline each of the sections and several steps are defined, and several recommendations based on available evidence have been agreed within each category. A comprehensive workflow of the different steps is given in an algorithm. In addition, issues of health technology assessment (HTA) serving to estimate efficiency followed by ethical directives are given.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovations into clinical practice should be introduced with the highest possible grade of safety for the patient (nil nocere: do no harm). The recommendations can contribute to the attainment of this objective without preventing future promising diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in the field of surgery and allied techniques.

The perils of commercially driven surgical innovation

The practice of gynecological surgery is being reshaped by commercial interests that are promoting the use of trochar-and-mesh surgical kits for the treatment of stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In this article, we review the recent history of these surgical innovations and discuss the implications of changes in surgical practice that are driven by commercial interests of this kind. We situate this phenomenon within the general "life cycle" of surgical innovation and point out the dangers inherent in the adoption of new procedures without adequate evidence to support their safety and efficacy. We highlight the ethical responsibilities surgeons and their professional organizations have in making sure such innovations are safe and effective before they come into widespread use. Finally, we offer some policy suggestions to ensure that this process has proper oversight.

Minimally invasive liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a multicenter, international series on minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) metastasis.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Multiple single series have been reported on laparoscopic liver resection for CRC metastasis. We report the first collaborative multicenter, international series to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic integrity of laparoscopic liver resection for CRC metastasis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent minimally invasive liver resection for CRC metastasis from February 2000 to September 2008 from multiple medical centers from the United States and Europe. The multicenter series of patients were accumulated into a single database. Patient demographics, preoperative, operative, and postoperative characteristics were analyzed. Actuarial overall survival was calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients underwent minimally invasive liver resection for CRC metastasis. The median age was 63 years (range, 32-88 years) with 51% females. The most common sites of primary colon cancer were sigmoid/rectum (51%), right colon (25%), and left colon (13%). Synchronous liver lesions were present in 11% of patients. For those with metachronous lesions liver lesions, the median time interval from primary colon cancer surgery to liver metastasectomy was 12 months. Preoperative chemotherapy was administered in 68% of cases prior to liver resection. The majority of patients underwent prior abdominal operations (95%). Minimally invasive approaches included totally laparoscopic (56%) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (41%), the latter of which was employed more frequently in the US medical centers (85%) compared with European centers (13%) (P = 0.001). There were 4 conversions to open surgery (3.7%), all due to bleeding. Extents of resection include wedge/segmentectomy (34%), left lateral sectionectomy (27%), right hepatectomy (28%), left hepatectomy (9%), extended right hepatectomy (0.9%), and caudate lobectomy (0.9%). Major liver resections (> or =3 segments) were performed in 45% of patients. Median OR time was 234 minutes (range, 60-555 minutes) and blood loss was 200 mL (range, 20-2500 mL) with 10% receiving a blood transfusion. There were no reported perioperative deaths and a 12% complication rate. Median length of hospital stay for the entire series was 4 days (range, 1-22 days) with a shorter stay in medical centers in the United States (3 days) versus that seen in Europe (6 days) (P = 0.001). Negative margins were achieved in 94.4% of patients. Actuarial overall survivals at 1-, 3-, and 5-year for the entire series were 88%, 69%, and 50%, respectively. Disease-free survivals at 1-, 3-, and 5-year were 65%, 43%, and 43%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal metastasis is safe, feasible, and oncologically comparable to open liver resection for both minor and major liver resections, even with prior intra-abdominal operations, in selected patients and when performed by experienced surgeons.

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

Feasibility of randomized controlled trials in liver surgery using surgery-related mortality or morbidity as endpoint

BACKGROUND

There is a shortage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on which to base guidelines in liver surgery. The feasibility of conducting an adequately powered RCT in liver surgery using the dichotomous endpoints surgery-related mortality or morbidity was examined.

METHODS

Articles published between January 2002 and November 2007 with mortality or morbidity after liver surgery as primary endpoint were retrieved. Sample size calculations for a RCT aiming to show a relative reduction of these endpoints by 33, 50 or 66 per cent were performed.

RESULTS

The mean operative mortality rate was 1.0 per cent and the total morbidity rate 28.9 per cent; mean rates of bile leakage and postresectional liver failure were 4.4 and 2.6 per cent respectively. The smallest numbers of patients needed in each arm of a RCT aiming to show a 33 per cent relative reduction were 15 614 for operative mortality, 412 for total morbidity, 3446 for bile leakage and 5924 for postresectional liver failure.

CONCLUSION

The feasibility of conducting an adequately powered RCT in liver surgery using outcomes such as mortality or specific complications seems low. Conclusions of underpowered RCTs should be interpreted with caution. A liver surgery-specific composite endpoint may be a useful and clinically relevant solution to pursue.

Balloon kyphoplasty in malignant spinal fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal fractures are a common source of morbidity in cancer patients. Balloon Kyphoplasty (BKP) is a minimally invasive procedure designed to stabilize fractures and correct vertebral deformities. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched several electronic databases up to September 2008 and the reference lists of relevant publications for studies reporting on BKP in patients with spinal fractures secondary to osteolytic metastasis and multiple myeloma. Outcomes sought included pain relief, functional capacity, quality of life, vertebral height, kyphotic angle and adverse events. Studies were assessed for methodological bias, and estimates of effect were calculated using a random-effects model. Potential reasons for heterogeneity were explored.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed seven relevant studies published from 2003 to 2008, none of which were randomized trials. Analysis of those studies indicated that BKP resulted in less pain and better functional outcomes, and that these effects were maintained up to 2 years post-procedure. While BKP also improved early vertebral height loss and spinal deformity, these effects were not long-term. No serious procedure-related complications were described. Clinically asymptomatic cement leakage occurred in 6% of all treated levels, and new vertebral fractures in 10% of patients. While there is a lack of studies comparing BKP to other interventions, some data suggested that BKP provided similar pain relief as vertebroplasty and a lower cement leakage rate.

CONCLUSION

It appears that there is level III evidence showing BKP is a well-tolerated, relatively safe and effective technique that provides early pain relief and improved functional outcomes in patients with painful neoplastic spinal fractures. BKP also provided long-term benefits in terms of pain and disability. However, the methodological quality of the original studies prevents definitive conclusions being drawn. Further investigation into the use of BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients is warranted.

High quality care and ethical pay-for-performance: a Society of General Internal Medicine policy analysis

BACKGROUND

Pay-for-performance is proliferating, yet its impact on key stakeholders remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The Society of General Internal Medicine systematically evaluated ethical issues raised by performance-based physician compensation.

RESULTS

We conclude that current arrangements are based on fundamentally acceptable ethical principles, but are guided by an incomplete understanding of health-care quality. Furthermore, their implementation without evidence of safety and efficacy is ethically precarious because of potential risks to stakeholders, especially vulnerable patients.

CONCLUSION

We propose four major strategies to transition from risky pay-for-performance systems to ethical performance-based physician compensation and high quality care. These include implementing safeguards within current pay-for-performance systems, reaching consensus regarding the obligations of key stakeholders in improving health-care quality, developing valid and comprehensive measures of health-care quality, and utilizing a cautious evaluative approach in creating the next generation of compensation systems that reward genuine quality.

An evidence-based approach to the adoption of new technology

New orthopaedic technology is constantly being developed to help improve patient care. New technology may lead to a waste of resources or lead to harm for the patient if it is not properly evaluated before it is accepted as a standard of care. The purpose of this article is to assess how new technology can be implemented safely while maintaining an environment that allows for surgical innovation through an evidence-based approach. Although randomized controlled trials (Level-I evidence) are typically seen as the so-called gold standard with regard to treatment efficacy, randomized trials may not be the most effective form of evaluating a new technology. In many circumstances, a prospective cohort series or large registry that documents outcomes and adverse events may be more effective and practical for the evaluation of a new surgical technology.

Development and validation of the convalescence and recovery evaluation (CARE) for measuring quality of life after surgery

PURPOSE

To develop a generic instrument for measuring short-term health status in the recovery period among patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic surgery.

METHOD

Instrument content was based on qualitative data ascertained from focus groups of patients and input from an expert panel of clinicians and psychometricians. A draft questionnaire was then piloted and revised, leading to the 27-item Convalescence and Recovery Evaluation (CARE). CARE consists of four individually scored domains, which were identified using factor analysis. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity were assessed.

RESULTS

Test-retest reliability was high, ranging from 0.78 for the activity domain to >0.88 for all others. Internal consistency varied over time postoperatively but was moderate to high for all domains throughout. Correlations between the four domains of CARE were low (each r<or=0.57). Moderate agreement was evident between CARE domains and the appropriate components of validated instruments, providing convergent validity.

CONCLUSIONS

CARE is a robust, multi-dimensional measure of convalescence after abdominal and pelvic surgery. CARE can be used to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon of recovery and to measure the impact of new processes of care (e.g., surgical technology adoption) on short-term patient outcomes.

Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme

OBJECTIVES

The association between type and amount of clinical evidence and type of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendations for interventional procedures was examined.

METHODS

The evidence about 736 studies (including 183,729 patients) relating to 130 different interventional procedures and about relevant recommendations was analyzed. Associations were examined between type of recommendation ("normal arrangements" or "cautionary guidance") and evidence type, total number of treated patients, and mean follow-up length. Evidence type was categorized as (a) randomized, (b) nonrandomized controlled, and (c) case series/reports. The main outcome measures were frequency of evidence type, total number of patients treated, and mean follow-up length, by type of recommendation.

RESULTS

"Normal arrangements" recommendations were made for 70 (54 percent) procedures and "cautionary guidance" was issued for 60 (46 percent) procedures. Procedures supported by at least one randomized study (34 percent, n = 44) were more likely to receive a "normal arrangements" recommendation (relative risk 1.38, p = .063). Overall, there were 85 (12 percent), 135 (18 percent), and 516 (70 percent) studies in categories a-c, respectively. The number of treated patients was significantly larger among procedures with "normal arrangements" (median, 605; range, 26-6,842) than among those with "cautionary guidance" (median, 240; range, 1-3,261; p < .001) recommendation. Mean follow-up length was longer in studies relating to procedures with "normal arrangements" recommendation (median, 16.7; range, 0-84 months) compared with those with "cautionary guidance" (median, 14.6; range, 0-67 months; p = .160).

CONCLUSIONS

Procedures supported by randomized studies, and with larger numbers of patients and longer follow-up length, were more likely to receive positive guidance. Future research and development on interventional procedures should aim to produce better and more relevant evidence to optimize the possibility of such procedures being accepted by policy makers.

Defining the technical skills of teamwork in surgery

Developments in surgical technology and procedure have accelerated and altered the work carried out in the operating theatre/room, but team modelling and training have not co-evolved. Evidence suggests that team structure and role allocation are sometimes unclear and contentious, and coordination and communication are not fully effective. To improve teamwork, clinicians need models that specify team resources, structure, process and tasks. They also need measures to assess performance and methods to train teamwork strategically. An effective training strategy might be to incorporate teamwork with other technical skills training in simulation. However, the measures employed for enhancing teamwork in training and practice will need to vary in their object of analysis, level of technical specificity, and system scope.

An Eight-Year Analysis of Surgical Morbidity and Mortality: Data and Solutions

In this article, a reproducible process for presenting, analyzing, and reducing early and late surgical morbidity and mortality (M&M) is detailed. All M&M cases presented from 1998 through 2005 at Monmouth Medical Center were categorized. Residents and nurses were empowered to report the complications. The five major categories were overwhelming disease on admission, delays in treatment, diagnostic or judgment complications, treatment complications, and technical complications. From the 53,541 operations performed over 8 years, 714 patients were presented, which included 147 deaths and 1,132 category entries. The most common problems were technical complications in 474 (66.4%) patients. The data have generated actionable solutions, many with low barriers to adoption, resulting in safer, less expensive surgical management. Surgical outcome benchmarks have been established and are used for credentialing surgeons. The “Hostile Abdomen Index” has been developed to assess the safest choice for abdominal operative access, pre- and intraoperatively. We explained the real-time process that generated solutions for the entire department as well as changes relevant to residency training and individual operative techniques.