Double-edged sword of surgical innovation: ethical issues of early and late adoption of novel techniques

What Are Patients Told About Innovative Surgical Procedures? A Qualitative Synthesis of 7 Case Studies in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how information about innovative surgical procedures is communicated to patients.

BACKGROUND

Despite the national and international guidance that patients should be informed whether a procedure is innovative and has uncertain outcomes, little is known about current practice.

METHODS

This qualitative study followed 7 "case studies" of surgical innovation in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Preoperative interviews were conducted with clinician innovators (n=9), preoperative real-time consultations between clinicians and patients were audio-recorded (n=37). Patients were interviewed postoperatively (n=30). Data were synthesized using thematic analytical methods.

RESULTS

Interviews with clinicians demonstrated strong intentions to inform patients about the innovative nature of the procedure in a neutral manner, although tensions between fully informing patients and not distressing them were raised. In the consultations, only a minority of clinicians actually made explicit statements about, (1) the procedure being innovative, (2) their limited clinical experience with it, (3) the paucity of evidence, and (4) uncertainty/unknown outcomes. Discussions about risks were generalized and often did not relate to the innovative component. Instead, all clinicians optimistically presented potential benefits and many disclosed their own positive beliefs. Postoperative patient interviews revealed that many believed that the procedure was more established than it was and were unaware of the unknown risks.

CONCLUSIONS

There were contradictions between clinicians' intentions to inform patients about the uncertain outcomes of innovative and their actual discussions with patients. There is a need for communication interventions and training to support clinicians to provide transparent data and shared decision-making for innovative procedures.

Innovation versus Experimentation: An Application of Ethical Frameworks to the Acceptance of Fluorescence-Guided Pediatric Surgery

Innovation is essential to the advancement of the field of pediatric surgery. The natural skepticism toward new technologies in pediatrics leads to frequent confusion of surgical innovation and research. Using fluorescence-guided surgery as an archetype for this ethical discussion, we apply existing conceptual frameworks of surgical innovation to understand the distinction between innovation and experimentation, acknowledging the spectrum and "grey zone" in between. In this review, we discuss the role of Institutional Review Boards in evaluating surgical practice innovations, and the aspects of certain surgical innovations that are distinct from experimentation, including a thorough understanding of the risk profile, preexisting use in humans, and adaptation from related fields. Examining fluorescence-guided surgery through these existing frameworks as well as the concept of equipoise, we conclude that new applications of indocyanine green do not constitute human subjects research. Most importantly, this example gives practitioners a lens through which they may appraise potential surgical innovations to allow for a sensible and efficient improvement of the field of pediatric surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

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.