SeriesEvaluation and stages of surgical innovations
Introduction
During the past 30 years, modern surgical care has greatly improved patients' quality and length of life.1 These advances have been usually related to clinical manoeuvres that applied clear-cut pathophysiological and anatomical concepts. Occasionally, however, the premise might have been dubious as, for example, in the case of total colon resection to treat female autointoxication.2 Irrespective of the scientific basis for the proposed innovation, the usefulness of the intervention has usually been clinically obvious—eg, cessation of bleeding, closure of a perforated viscus, repair of a shattered bone, and excision of an abnormal growth. In the most common clinical setting, surgical progress has been a process of trial and error. Formal and comparative assessment of procedures had little role, and only scant attention had been paid to patient and societal inconvenience or cost.
Because patient outcomes have improved and proof of superior effectiveness has become more challenging than in the past, surgeons have now adopted a more scientific basis to change strategies in patient care, turning to the current medical standard for the development of knowledge—evidence-based health care.3
Evidence-based health care is characterised by the promotion of unbiased, highly reliable types of evidence (eg, randomised controlled trials, although other forms of evidence are possible).4, 5, 6 Despite the endorsement of evidence-based health care by the surgical community, reviews of surgical reports show a substantial under-representation of randomised controlled trials.7, 8 In addition to the paucity of randomised controlled trials, the few published controlled surgical trials do not meet current quality standards for optimal reporting.9, 10
Several attempts to address these shortcomings have appeared in surgical reports over recent years, but there has been little evidence of sustained success.11, 12, 13 Indeed, the frequency of surgical randomised controlled trials has remained low: 9% in 1993 and 8% in 2006.7, 12, 14 Although surgeons are not alone in rarely using randomised designs,15, 16, 17 formal assessment might be less feasible in surgery than in other medical domains.18, 19, 20 Possible reasons include the types of patients in surgery, the complexity of surgical interventions, and the disposition of surgeons. One other factor that complicates any assessment is the constant innovation of surgery. Indeed, innovation is at the core of both surgical practice and research, as illustrated by the statement of the American Society of University Surgeons, “surgeons are trained to perform continuous situational assessment, decision analysis, and improvisation, in preparation for the challenges and creativity required by nearly every clinical case”.21
In this report, we examine some of the processes of innovation and assessment of a surgical intervention or operation. Conventionally defined as a medical procedure involving an incision with instrument, Krummel22 proposed that an operation consists of two components: the first is imaging (visual or other [eg, radiological]) and the second is a manipulation (manual or through a source of energy or shockwave).
In the second paper of this Series,23 we focus on methodological problems to the best possible assessment of surgery, and in the third paper24 we propose a paradigm to deal with the timely and appropriate assessment of surgical innovation along its different stages. Many of our conclusions will not only be true for innovative procedures in surgery, but will also be applicable to other intervention-based or craft-based specialties such as cardiology, radiology, or gastroenterology.
Section snippets
Innovation and surgery
In surgery, many definitions and nomenclatures describe the process of innovation and the innovations themselves.25, 26, 27 An innovative procedure in surgery has been described as “a new or modified surgical procedure that differs from currently accepted local practice, the outcomes of which have not been described, and which may entail risk to the patient”.21 Because not all innovations are equal, a three-level taxonomy of innovation in surgical care has been proposed, which ranges from
Surgery and harms to patients
Surgeons pay attention to patient harms, perhaps even before efficacy or effectiveness, to assess quality of patient care. Early efforts can be credited to Ernest A Codman, a surgeon in the late 1890s and a founder of the American College of Surgeons.43 His peers ostracised him for his interest in using surgical outcomes to improve surgical care, which led to the revocation of his privileges from the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1914.44 Over 90 years later, in a review of 276 surgical
Adoption of surgical innovation
Adoption of an innovation into practice can be defined by the increase in the number of overall surgeons doing the procedure over time, which will occur until it is either accepted by surgeons or discarded. One paradigm of diffusion of an innovation is sociological. Rogers54 has commented on an S-curve model to describe the adoption of an agricultural innovation (a new type of corn) by a large community of farmers. The curve was descriptive, independent of a regulatory context, and not only
Stages of surgical innovation
To describe and assess the development of a new surgical innovation, a more useful model is to segment it into sequential stages that are most characteristic of the early events of adoption (table 2). These stages can be defined not only by the development of the innovation but also by the unique opportunity for critical appraisal that each represents. These stage-specific features are based on the following characteristics: level of refinement of the new technique (ie, is there still a
Conclusions
We have focused on the intricate relation between innovation and practice in surgery, and how this needs a formalised evaluative framework. The application of this paradigm of staged development and evaluation is further discussed in the third paper of this Series.24 The second paper of this Series23 describes methodological challenges to the evaluation of surgical innovation.
Glossary
- Augmented reality
- is a recent technology that is similar to the virtual reality paradigm. It combines three-dimensional computer-generated objects and text superimposed, and it allows the creation of a hybrid, virtual patient model based on information from multiple imaging sources
References (61)
- et al.
Is surgical science dead? The Excelsior Society lecture
J Am Coll Surg
(2004) - et al.
Why should surgeons care about clinical research methodology?
J Am Coll Surg
(2006) - et al.
Center for clinical studies in a surgical department–an approach for more evidence-based medicine
Contemp Clin Trials
(2006) - et al.
Randomized controlled trials in surgery: issues and problems
Surgery
(1996) Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence
Am J Surg
(2002)- et al.
Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons
J Am Coll Surg
(2008) What is surgery?
Semin Pediatr Surg
(2006)- et al.
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation
Lancet
(2009) - et al.
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations
Lancet
(2009) - et al.
Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier?
J Am Coll Surg
(2002)
10 years of NICE: still growing and still controversial
Lancet Oncol
Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques?
J Am Coll Surg
The history and contemporary challenges of the US Food and Drug Administration
Clin Ther
Initial experience with radiofrequency ablation for hepatic tumours in the Netherlands
Eur J Surg Oncol
Evaluating surgical outcomes
Surg Clin North Am
Limitations of randomized clinical trials for evaluating emerging operations: the case of lung volume reduction surgery
Ann Thorac Surg
Consequences and treatment from a surgical point of view
BMJ
Instilling a culture of evidence-based surgery in Canada
World J Surg
Teleoanalysis: combining data from different types of study
BMJ
When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise
BMJ
Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence
BMJ
Perspectives of evidence-based surgery
Dig Surg
The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials
Trials
The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement: a systematic review
Ann Surg
Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better?
Ann Surg
Surgical innovation and its evaluation
Science
Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved?
Dis Colon Rectum
Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review
Palliat Med
Quality of full and final publications reporting acute stroke trials: a systematic review
Stroke
The number, quality, and coverage of randomized controlled trials in nephrology
J Am Soc Nephrol
Cited by (452)
Defining the Learning Curve of the Exoscope in Spine Surgery
2024, World NeurosurgeryClinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review
2023, Health PolicyNew surgical approaches in glioblastoma
2023, New Insights into Glioblastoma: Diagnosis, Therapeutics and TheranosticsThe IDEAL framework
2023, Translational Interventional RadiologyApplication of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a review of the literature
2024, Langenbeck's Archives of SurgeryHuman Factors Integration in Robotic Surgery
2024, Human Factors
- ‡
Members listed at end of paper