Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: A systematic review

First-in-Human Whole-Eye Transplantation: Ensuring an Ethical Approach to Surgical Innovation

As innovations in the field of vascular composite allotransplantation (VCA) progress, whole-eye transplantation (WET) is poised to transition from non-human mammalian models to living human recipients. Present treatment options for vision loss are generally considered suboptimal, and attendant concerns ranging from aesthetics and prosthesis maintenance to social stigma may be mitigated by WET. Potential benefits to WET recipients may also include partial vision restoration, psychosocial benefits related to identity and social integration, improvements in physical comfort and function, and reduced surgical risk associated with a biologic eye compared to a prosthesis. Perioperative and postoperative risks of WET are expected to be comparable to those of facial transplantation (FT), and may be similarly mitigated by immunosuppressive protocols, adequate psychosocial support, and a thorough selection process for both the recipient and donor. To minimize the risks associated with immunosuppressive medications, the first attempts in human recipients will likely be performed in conjunction with a FT. If first-in-human attempts at combined FT-WET prove successful and the biologic eye survives, this opens the door for further advancement in the field of vision restoration by means of a viable surgical option. This analysis integrates recent innovations in WET research with the existing discourse on the ethics of surgical innovation and offers preliminary guidance to VCA programs considering undertaking WET in human recipients.

Should the Use of Adaptive Machine Learning Systems in Medicine be Classified as Research?

A novel advantage of the use of machine learning (ML) systems in medicine is their potential to continue learning from new data after implementation in clinical practice. To date, considerations of the ethical questions raised by the design and use of adaptive machine learning systems in medicine have, for the most part, been confined to discussion of the so-called "update problem," which concerns how regulators should approach systems whose performance and parameters continue to change even after they have received regulatory approval. In this paper, we draw attention to a prior ethical question: whether the continuous learning that will occur in such systems after their initial deployment should be classified, and regulated, as medical research? We argue that there is a strong prima facie case that the use of continuous learning in medical ML systems should be categorized, and regulated, as research and that individuals whose treatment involves such systems should be treated as research subjects.

Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review

BACKGROUND

The haphazard adoption of new surgical technologies into practice has the potential to cause patient harm and there are many misconceptions in the decision-making behind the adoption of new innovations. The aim of this study was to synthesize factors affecting a surgeon's decision to adopt a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to obtain all studies where surgeon views on the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice have been collected. The databases screened were MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (last accessed October 2022). Innovations covered multiple specialties, including cardiac, general, urology, and orthopaedics. The quality of the papers was assessed using a 10-question Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies (including 1112 participants, of which 694 were surgeons) from nine countries satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Types of study included semi-structured interviews and focus groups, for example. Themes and sub-themes that emerged after a thematic synthesis were categorized using five causal factors (structural, organizational, patient-level, provider-level, and innovation-based). These themes were further split into facilitators and barriers. Key facilitators to adoption of an innovation include improved clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and support from internal and external stakeholders. Barriers to adoption include lack of organizational support and views of senior surgeons.

CONCLUSION

There are multiple complex factors that dynamically interact, affecting the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. There is a need to further investigate surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the strength of clinical evidence required to support the widespread adoption of a surgical innovation into clinical practice.

Operating Ethically: A Review of Surgical Ethics in Pakistan and Recommendations for the Way Forward

Medical ethics underpin the moral framework that delineates the professional relationship between physicians and their patients and thereby is an integral part of making patient-centric healthcare decisions. The concept of ethics is deeply embedded in the field of surgery as surgeons confront a myriad of dilemmas as a part of their routine, whether it be in a preoperative or postoperative environment. The current review aims to describe the state of surgical ethics in Pakistan, with the intent of encouraging dialogues about the ethical considerations relevant to the field surgery that will identify actionable areas for improvement. While most surgeons are aware of the traditional principles of ethics and their practice, their surgical and clinical decisions may fall short of these standards because of time constraints and prevailing cultural and religious beliefs and taboos. The rigorous application of ethical principles in areas of patient-related communication, such as consenting, trainee education, palliative and end-of-life care, and surgical innovation and research, will have significant implications for patients, surgeons, and society. Our review has identified the lack of formal bioethics education and insufficient oversight and ethical regulations to be at the core of inadequate ethical practices in Pakistan and has highlighted actionable areas to be addressed in the future.

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.

Ethical and Psychosocial Factors in the Decision-Making and Informed Consent Process for Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Mixed-Methods Study

Although upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) aims to improve quality of life, relatively few have been performed worldwide to support evidence-based treatment and informed decision-making.

Methods

We qualitatively examined factors contributing to anticipated and actual decision-making about UE VCA and perceptions of the elements of informed consent among people with UE amputations, and UE VCA candidates, participants, and recipients through in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.

Results

Fifty individuals participated; most were male (78%) and had a mean age of 45 y and a unilateral amputation (84%). One-third (35%) were "a lot" or "completely" willing to pursue UE VCA. UE VCA decision-making themes included the utility of UE VCA, psychosocial impact of UE VCA and amputation on individuals' lives, altruism, and anticipated burden of UE VCA on lifestyle. Most respondents who underwent UE VCA evaluation (n = 8/10) perceived having no reasonable treatment alternatives. Generally, respondents (n = 50) recognized the potential for familial, societal, cultural, medical, and self-driven pressures to pursue UE VCA among individuals with amputations. Some (n = 9/50, 18%) reported personally feeling "a little," "somewhat," "a lot," or "completely" pressured to pursue UE VCA. Respondents recommended that individuals be informed about the option of UE VCA near the amputation date.

Conclusions

Our study identified psychosocial and other factors affecting decision-making about UE VCA, which should be addressed to enhance informed consent. Study participants' perceptions and preferences about UE VCA suggest re-examination of assumptions guiding the UE VCA clinical evaluation process.

Patient preferences as human factors for health data recommender systems and shared decision making in orthopaedic practice

Background

A core set of requirements for designing AI-based Health Recommender Systems (HRS) is a thorough understanding of human factors in a decision-making process. Patient preferences regarding treatment outcomes can be one important human factor. For orthopaedic medicine, limited communication may occur between a patient and a provider during the short duration of a clinical visit, limiting the opportunity for the patient to express treatment outcome preferences (TOP). This may occur despite patient preferences having a significant impact on achieving patient satisfaction, shared decision making and treatment success. Inclusion of patient preferences during patient intake and/or during the early phases of patient contact and information gathering can lead to better treatment recommendations.

Aim

We aim to explore patient treatment outcome preferences as significant human factors in treatment decision making in orthopedics. The goal of this research is to design, build, and test an app that collects baseline TOPs across orthopaedic outcomes and reports this information to providers during a clinical visit. This data may also be used to inform the design of HRSs for orthopaedic treatment decision making.

Methods

We created a mobile app to collect TOPs using a direct weighting (DW) technique. We used a mixed methods approach to pilot test the app with 23 first-time orthopaedic visit patients presenting with joint pain and/or function deficiency by presenting the app for utilization and conducting qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys post utilization.

Results

The study validated five core TOP domains, with most users dividing their 100-point DW allocation across 1-3 domains. The tool received moderate to high usability scores. Thematic analysis of patient interviews provides insights into TOPs that are important to patients, how they can be communicated effectively, and incorporated into a clinical visit with meaningful patient-provider communication that leads to shared decision making.

Conclusion

Patient TOPs may be important human factors to consider in determining treatment options that may be helpful for automating patient treatment recommendations. We conclude that inclusion of patient TOPs to inform the design of HRSs results in creating more robust patient treatment profiles in the EHR thus enhancing opportunities for treatment recommendations and future AI applications.

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.

Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of an Esophagectomy Care Pathway: a Qualitative Analysis

INTRODUCTION

A new postoperative esophagectomy care pathway was recently implemented at our institution. Practice pattern change among provider teams can prove challenging; therefore, we sought to study the barriers and facilitators toward pathway implementation at the provider level.

METHODS

This qualitative study was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to study the adoption and implementation of a post-esophagectomy care pathway. Sixteen in-depth interviews were conducted with providers involved with the pathway. Matrix analysis was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Providers included attending surgeons (n = 6), advanced practice providers (n = 8), registered dietitian (n = 1), and clinic staff (n = 1). TDF domains that were salient across our findings included knowledge, beliefs about consequences, social influences, and environmental context and resources. Identified facilitators included were electronic health record tools, such as note templates including pathway components and a pathway-specific order set, patient satisfaction, and preliminary data indicating clinical benefits such as a reduced anastomotic leak rate. The major barrier reported was a hesitance to abandon previous practice patterns, most prevalent at the attending surgeon level.

CONCLUSION

The TDF enabled us to identify and understand the individuals' perceived barriers and facilitators toward adoption and implementation of a postoperative esophagectomy pathway. This analysis can help guide and improve adoption of surgical patient care pathways among providers.

Heads, Bodies, Brains, and Selves: Personal Identity and the Ethics of Whole-Body Transplantation

Plans to attempt what has been called a head transplant, a body transplant, and a head-to-body transplant in human beings raise numerous ethical, social, and legal questions, including the circumstances, if any, under which it would be ethically permissible to attempt whole-body transplantation (WBT) in human beings, the possible effect of WBT on family relationships, and how families should shape WBT decisions. Our assessment of many of these questions depends partially on how we respond to sometimes centuries-old philosophical thought experiments about personal identity. As with so much in bioethics, it is impossible to escape, or at least inadvisable to try to bypass, the relevant foundational philosophical concerns.

What are the health consequences associated with differences in medical malpractice liability laws? An instrumental variable analysis of surgery effects on health outcomes for proximal humeral facture across states with different liability rules

BACKGROUND

States enacted tort reforms to lower medical malpractice liability, which are associated with higher surgery rates among Medicare patients with shoulder conditions. Surgery in this group often entails tradeoffs between improved health and increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We assessed whether differences in surgery rates across states with different liability rules are associated with surgical outcomes among Medicare patients with proximal humeral fracture.

METHODS

We obtained data for 67,966 Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of proximal humeral fracture in 2011. Outcome measures included adverse events, mortality, and treatment success rates, defined as surviving the treatment period with < $300 in shoulder-related expenditures. We used existing state-level tort reform rules as instruments for surgical treatment and separately as predictors to answer our research question, both for the full cohort and for stratified subgroups based on age and general health status measured by Charlson Comorbidity Index and Function-Related Indicators.

RESULTS

We found a 0.32 percentage-point increase (p < 0.05) in treatment success and a 0.21 percentage-point increase (p < 0.01) in mortality for every 1 percentage-point increase in surgery rates among patients in states with lower liability risk. In subgroup analyses, mortality increased among more vulnerable patients, by 0.29 percentage-point (p < 0.01) for patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index >  = 2 and by 0.45 percentage-point (p < 0.01) among those patients with Function-Related Indicator scores >  = 2. On the other hand, treatment success increased in patients with lower Function-Related Index scores (< 2) by 0.54 percentage-point (p < 0.001). However, younger Medicare patients (< 80 years) experienced an increase in both mortality (0.28 percentage-point, p < 0.01) and treatment success (0.89 percentage-point, p < 0.01). The reduced-form estimates are consistent with our instrumental variable results.

CONCLUSIONS

A tradeoff exists between increased mortality risk and increased treatment success across states with different malpractice risk levels. These results varied across patient subgroups, with more vulnerable patients generally bearing the brunt of the increased mortality and less vulnerable patients enjoying increased success rates. These findings highlight the important risk-reward scenario associated with different liability environments, especially among patients with different health status.

A Framework for Successful Adoption of Surgical Innovation

Background

Innovation Adoption Frameworks are applied in healthcare industry, but surgical innovation does not follow the same models as medical innovation and it is not always adopted fully by members of the team.

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to develop a framework for successful adoption of surgical innovation.

Research design

This paper is inspired by design thinking. Based on a pragmatic research philosophy, a mixed method approach was selected including semi-structured interview and focus groups, following a questionnaire.

Study sample

A sample of five specialists in the field (doctors and managers) were selected for interview. Six focus groups were conducted. On average, five people were involved in each focus groups, 30 participants in total, including consultants, senior and junior ward nurses, health care assistant (HCA), cancer nurse specialist, stoma nurses, theatre senior and junior staff.

Data collection/analysis

Qualitative data was collected and analyzed using Thematic Analysis.

Results

Following a design thinking approach; firstly, an initial Surgical Adoption Model was proposed, based on the existing literature. Then, the challenges, processes and teams involved in Robotic Surgery adoption, an existing surgical innovation in a local NHS hospital, were explored. Five main themes were extracted from interviews and focus groups data - ‘Innovation Perception’, ‘Guilty vs. Undervalued’, ‘Knowledge is Power’, ‘Ex-novation’ and ‘Facilitators and Super-users’. This resulted into the development of an adapted Surgical Innovation Framework.

Conclusions

The Surgical Innovation Framework incorporated the themes extracted from the data. The framework is unique within the field of surgical innovation and is designed with the aim of improving surgical innovation adoption success rate. Future research can trial the framework to evaluate its effectiveness.

Surgical innovation in LMICs-The perspective from India

Surgical Innovations are central to surgical progress, and have led to exponential growth in various fields of Surgery. Surgical Innovations in Lower and Middle Income Countries are the result of creativity of frontline health workers in search of simple, safe and ethical solutions for their unique challenges. The key lies in: 'simplifying the idea/technique/device' to find patients' needs-driven low-cost innovative surgical solutions; which can be used on a wider scale to achieve health equity for underserved populations. Local surgeons understand the difficulties and nuances of various problems and can provide local-evidence-based customized solutions for their patients' health problems. We developed a Surgical Innovation Ecosystem allowing us to see difficulties as opportunities, learn from everyone and conduct research on what is 'important' rather than what is 'interesting'. Barriers to Surgical Innovations in Lower and Middle Income Countries are well known; however, a roadmap to overcome these barriers is now available. The right balance has to be found between encouraging creativity and innovation while maintaining ethical awareness and responsibility to patients. Introduction and adoption of Surgical Innovations are governed by evidence-based principles and have to undergo a rigorous and scientific evaluation. Science of Surgical Innovations has finally come of age and is getting its due recognition and the pioneering innovators are receiving the much needed appreciation and support.

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.

State medical malpractice laws and utilization of surgical treatment for rotator cuff tear and proximal humerus fracture: an observational cohort study

Background

How much does the medical malpractice system affect treatment decisions in orthopaedics? To further this inquiry, we sought to assess whether malpractice liability is associated with differences in surgery rates among elderly orthopaedic patients.

Methods

Medicare data were obtained for patients with a rotator cuff tear or proximal humerus fracture in 2011. Multivariate regressions were used to assess whether the probability of surgery is associated with various state-level rules that increase or decrease malpractice liability risks.

Results

Study results indicate that lower liability is associated with higher surgery rates. States with joint and several liability, caps on punitive damages, and punitive evidence rule had surgery rates that were respectively 5%-, 1%-, and 1%-point higher for rotator cuff tears, and 2%-, 2%- and 1%-point higher for proximal humerus fractures. Conversely, greater liability is associated with lower surgery rates, respectively 6%- and 9%-points lower for rotator cuff patients in states with comparative negligence and pure comparative negligence.

Conclusions

Medical malpractice liability is associated with orthopaedic treatment choices. Future research should investigate whether treatment differences result in health outcome changes to assess the costs and benefits of the medical liability system.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06544-8.

A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Trans-thoracic Liver Resection to Examine Intervention Description, Governance, and Outcome Reporting of an Innovative Technique

INTRODUCTION

The number of laparoscopic liver resections undertaken has increased. However, lesions located postero-superiorly are difficult to access. This may be overcome by the novel use of trans-thoracic port(s). Methods for the safe and transparent introduction of new and modified surgical procedures are limited and a summary of these issues, for minimally invasive trans-thoracic liver resections (MITTLR), is lacking. This study aims to understand and summarize technique description, governance procedures, and reporting of outcomes for MITTLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search to identify primary studies of all designs describing MITTLR was undertaken. How patients were selected for the new technique was examined. The technical components of MITTLR were identified and summarized to understand technique development over time. Governance arrangements (eg, Institutional Review Board approval) and steps taken to mitigate harm were recorded. Finally, specific outcomes reported across studies were documented.

RESULTS

Of 2067 screened articles, 16 were included reporting data from 145 patients and 6 countries. Selection criteria for patients was explicitly stated in 2 papers. No studies fully described the technique. Five papers reported ethical approval and 3 gave details of patient consent. No study reported on steps taken to mitigate harm.Technical outcomes were commonly reported, for example, blood loss (15/16 studies), operative time (15/16), and margin status (11/16). Information on patient-reported outcomes and costs were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Technical details and governance procedures were poorly described. Outcomes focussed on short term details alone. Transparency is needed for reporting the introduction of new surgical techniques to allow their safe dissemination.

What Promotes Surgeon Practice Change? A Scoping Review of Innovation Adoption in Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this scoping review was to summarize the literature on facilitators and barriers to surgical practice change. This information can inform research to implement best practices and evaluate new surgical innovations.

BACKGROUND

In an era of accelerated innovations, surgeons face the difficult decision to either acknowledge and implement or forgo new advances. Although changing surgical practice to align with evidence is an imperative of health systems, evidence-based guidelines have not translated into consistent change. The literature on practice change is limited and has largely focused on synthesizing information on methods and trials to evaluate innovative surgical interventions. No reviews to date have grounded their analysis within an implementation science framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on surgical practice change was performed. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed for relevance using inclusion and exclusion criteria and data were extracted from each article. Cited facilitators and barriers were then mapped across domains within the implementation science Theoretical Domains Framework and expanded to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior model.

RESULTS

Components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior model were represented across the Theoretical Domains Framework domains and acted as both facilitators and barriers to practice change depending on the circumstances. Domains that most affected surgical practice change, in order, were: opportunity (environmental context and resources and social influences), capability (knowledge and skills), and motivation (beliefs about consequences and reinforcement).

CONCLUSIONS

Practice change is predicated on a conducive environment with adequate resources, but once that is established, the surgeon's individual characteristics, including skills, motivation, and reinforcement determine the likelihood of successful change. Deficiencies in the literature underscore the need for further study of resource interventions and the role of surgical team dynamics in the adoption of innovation. A better understanding of these areas is needed to optimize our ability to disseminate and implement best practices in surgery.

A systematic review and in-depth analysis of outcome reporting in early phase studies of colorectal cancer surgical innovation

AIM

Early phase studies are essential to evaluate new technologies prior to randomized evaluation. Evaluation is limited, however, by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This study examines outcome reporting in studies of innovative colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified studies of invasive procedures treating primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Included were a random sample of studies which authors reported as 'new' or 'modified'. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorized using an existing framework of 32 domains relevant to early phase studies. Outcomes were classified as 'measured' (where there was an explicit statement to that effect or evidence that data collection had occurred) or 'mentioned but not measured' (where outcomes were discussed but data collection was not evident). Patterns of identified outcomes are described.

RESULTS

Of 8373 records, 816 were potentially eligible. Full-text review of a random sample of 218 studies identified 51 for inclusion of which 34 (66%) were 'new' and 17 (33%) were 'modified'. Some 2073 outcomes were identified, and all mapped to domains. 'Anticipated disadvantages' were most frequently identified [660 (32%) outcomes identified across 50 (98%) studies]. No domain was represented in all studies. Under half (944, 46%) of outcomes were 'measured'. 'Surgeon's/operator's experience of the innovation' was more frequently 'mentioned but not measured' [207 (18%) outcomes across 46 (90%) studies] than 'measured' [17 (2%) outcomes, 11 (22%) studies].

CONCLUSION

There is outcome reporting heterogeneity in studies of early phase colorectal cancer surgery. The adoption of core outcome sets may help to resolve these inconsistencies and enable efficient evaluation of surgical innovations.

[Surgical treatment of complex fractures of the upper end of the humerus: a retrospective study of 25 cases]

Les fractures de l’extrémité supérieure de l’humérus posent un problème thérapeutique particulièrement pour les fractures complexes à 3 et 4 fragments. Le but de notre travail est de déterminer l’aspect épidémio-clinique des fractures complexes de l’extrémité supérieure de l’humérus chez l’adulte et d’apprécier les résultats fonctionnels et radiologiques de notre série. Il s’agit d’une série de 25 cas colligés au service d’orthopédie CHU Habib Bourguiba entre 2012 et 2017. Nous avons recensé les données épidémiologiques des patients et les circonstances du traumatisme. Le traitement était de principe chirurgical soit ostéosynthèse par plaque ou clou soit un remplacement prothétique. La réduction a été évaluée sur les radiographies post opératoires. Au recul les résultats fonctionnels ont été évalués par le score de Constant. Notre série comporte 12 hommes et 13 femmes, La moyenne d’âge de nos patients était 55 ans, les accidents de la voie publique étaient notés dans 48%, Les fractures à 4 fragments ont été retrouvées dans 76% des cas. L’ostéosynthèse par plaque vissée a été utilisée dans 40% des cas et l’enclouage antérograde a été réalisé dans 40% des cas. La prothèse a été posée pour 5 patients. Le score de constant moyen était de 65,24 avec des extrêmes allant de 35 à 88. Nous avons noté une consolidation des fractures sans cal vicieux dans 68%. Dans les fractures complexes de l’extrémité supérieure de l’humérus, une ostéosynthèse bien indiquée selon le patient et la fracture et une rééducation post opératoire précoce permettent d’avoir des résultats fonctionnels acceptables.

Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

A major consideration for the implementation of a learning health system (LHS) is consent from participants to the use of their data for research purposes. The main objective of this paper was to identify in the literature which types of consent have been proposed for participation in research observational activities in a LHS. We were particularly interested in understanding which approaches were seen as most feasible and acceptable and in which context, in order to inform the development of a Quebec-based LHS.

METHODS

Using a scoping review methodology, we searched scientific and legal databases as well as the gray literature using specific terms. Full-text articles were reviewed independently by two authors on the basis of the following concepts: (a) LHS and (b) approach to consent. The selected papers were imported in NVivo software for analysis in the light of a conceptual framework that distinguishes various, largely independent dimensions of consent.

RESULTS

A total of 93 publications were analysed for this review. Several studies reach opposing conclusions concerning the best approach to consent within a LHS. However, in the light of the conceptual framework we developed, we found that many of these results are distorted by the conflation between various characteristics of consent. Thus, when these characteristics are distinguished, the results mainly suggest the prime importance of the communication process, by contrast to the scope of consent or the kind of action required by participants (opt-in/opt-out). We identified two models of consent that were especially relevant for our purpose: metaconsent and dynamic consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows the importance of distinguishing carefully the various features of the consent process. It also suggests that the metaconsent model is a valuable model within a LHS, as it addresses many of the issues raised with regards to feasibility and acceptability. We propose to complement this model by adding the modalities of the information process to the dimensions relevant in the metaconsent process.

When Time Is Critical, Is Informed Consent Less So? A Discussion of Patient Autonomy in Emergency Neurosurgery

Neurosurgical interventions frequently occur in an emergency setting. In this setting, patients often have impaired consciousness and are unable to directly express their values and wishes regarding their treatment. The limited time available for clinical decision making has great ethical implications, as the informed consent procedure may become compromised. The ethical situation may be further challenged by different views between the patient, family members, and the neurosurgeon; the presence of advance directives; the use of an innovative procedure; or if the procedure is part of a research project. This moral opinion piece presents the implications of time constraints and a lack of patient capacity for autonomous decision making in emergency neurosurgical situations. Potential solutions to these challenges are presented that may help to improve ethical patient management in emergency settings. Emergency neurosurgery challenges the respect of autonomy of the patient. The outcome in most scenarios will rely on the neurosurgeon acting in a professional way to manage each unique situation in an ethically sound manner.

Geographic variation in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture: an update on surgery rates and treatment consensus

Background

Using a larger, more comprehensive sample, and inclusion of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a primary surgical approach for proximal humerus fracture, we report on geographic variation in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture in 2011 and comment on whether treatment consensus is being reached.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare patients with an x-ray-confirmed diagnosis of proximal humerus fracture in 2011. Patients receiving reverse shoulder arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or open reduction internal fixation within 60 days of their diagnosis were classified as surgical management patients. Unadjusted observed surgery rates and area treatment ratios adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics were calculated at the hospital referral region level.

Results

Among patients with proximal humerus fracture (N = 77,053), 15.4% received surgery and 84.6% received conservative management. Unadjusted surgery rates varied from 1.7 to 33.3% across hospital referral regions. Among patients receiving surgery, 22.3% received hemiarthroplasty, 65.8% received open reduction internal fixation, and 11.8% received reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patients that were female, were younger, had fewer medical comorbidities, had a lower frailty index, were white, or were not dual-eligible for Medicaid during the month of their index fracture were more likely to receive surgery (p < .0001). Geographic variation in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture persisted after adjustment for patient demographic and clinical differences across local areas. Average surgery rates ranged from 9.9 to 21.2% across area treatment ratio quintiles.

Conclusions

Persistent geographic variation in surgery rates for proximal humerus fracture across the USA suggests no treatment consensus has been reached.

Defining Innovation in Neurosurgery: Results from an International Survey

BACKGROUND

Innovation is a part of the daily practice of neurosurgery. However, a clear definition of what constitutes innovation is lacking and opinions vary from continent to continent, from hospital to hospital, and from surgeon to surgeon.

METHODS

In this study, we distributed an online survey to neurosurgeons from multiple countries to investigate what neurosurgeons consider innovative, by gathering opinions on several hypothetical cases. The anonymous survey consisted of 52 questions and took approximately 10 minutes to complete.

RESULTS

A total of 355 neurosurgeons across all continents excluding Antarctica completed the survey. Neurosurgeons achieved consensus (>75%) in considering specific cases to be innovative, including laser resection of meningioma, focused ultrasonography for tumor, oncolytic virus, deep brain stimulation for addiction, and photodynamic therapy for tumor. Although the new dura substitute case was not considered innovative, there was consensus among neurosurgeons indicating that institutional review board approval was still necessary to maintain ethical standards. Furthermore, although 90% of neurosurgeons considered an oncolytic virus for glioblastoma multiforme to be innovative, only 78% believed that institutional review board approval was necessary before treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that innovation is a heterogeneous concept among neurosurgeons that necessitates standardization to ensure appropriate patient safety without stifling progress. We discuss both the ethical drawbacks of not having a clear definition of innovation and the challenges in achieving a unified understanding of innovation in neurosurgery and offer suggestions for uniting the field.

Oversight in Surgical Innovation: A Response to Ethical Challenges

Background

Surgical innovation has advanced outcomes in the field, but carries inherent risk for surgeons and patients alike. Oversight mechanisms exist to support surgeon-innovators through difficulties associated with the innovation process.

Methods

A literature review of ethical risks and oversight mechanisms was conducted.

Results

Oversight mechanisms range from the historical concept of surgical exceptionalism to departmental, hospital, and centralized committees. These fragmentary and non-standardized oversight mechanisms leave surgeon-innovators and patients open to significant risk of breaching the ethical principles at the core of surgical practice. A systematized approach that mitigates these risks while maintaining the independence and dignity of the surgical profession is necessary. We propose an oversight framework that incorporates multiple structures tailored toward the ethical risk introduced by different forms of innovation.

Discussion

We summarize ethical risks and current regulatory structures, and we then use these findings to outline an oversight framework that may be applied to surgical practice.

Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical innovation is different from the introduction of novel pharmaceuticals. To help address this, in 2009 the IDEAL Collaboration (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) introduced the five-stage framework for surgical innovation. To evaluate the framework feasibility for novel neurosurgical procedure introduction, two innovative surgical procedures were examined: the endoscopic endonasal approach for skull base meningiomas (EEMS) and the WovenEndobridge (WEB device) for endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

METHODS

The published literature on EEMS and WEB devices was systematically reviewed. Identified studies were classified according to the IDEAL framework stage. Next, studies were evaluated for possible categorization according to the IDEAL framework.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-six papers describing EEMS were identified of which 26 papers were included. No prospective studies were identified, and no studies reported on ethical approval or patient informed consent for the innovative procedure. Therefore, no clinical studies could be categorized according to the IDEAL Framework. For WEB devices, 6229 articles were screened of which 21 were included. In contrast to EEMS, two studies were categorized as 2a and two as 2b.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review demonstrate that both EEMS and WEB devices were not introduced according to the (later developed in the case of EEMS) IDEAL framework. Elements of the framework such as informed consent, ethical approval, and rigorous outcomes reporting are important and could serve to improve the quality of neurosurgical research. Alternative study designs and the use of big data could be useful modifications of the IDEAL framework for innovation in neurosurgery.