Successful evacuation of large perirenal hematoma after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) - step 1 of the IDEAL recommendations of surgical innovation

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The effect of perirenal puncture and drainage with urokinase treatment of perirenal hematoma complicated by infection: Two cases' report

The aim of this study was to discuss the clinical significance of perirenal puncture and drainage with urokinase treatment of perirenal hematoma complicated by infection following surgery for upper urinary tract calculi. Two cases of perirenal hematoma complicated by infection following surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in 2017, and later received perirenal puncture and drainage of perirenal hematoma with urokinase treatment were selected. Puncture and drainage of perirenal hematoma with urokinase treatment were performed without the occurrence of severe complications such as sepsis, septic shock, or secondary bleeding. Both the renal morphology and functions were well restored. Puncture and drainage with urokinase treatment had definite efficacy in the treatment of perirenal hematoma complicated by infection.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Perinephric Hematoma with Active Arterial Hemorrhage following Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

Subcapsular hematoma is an exceedingly rare complication of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal stones with cases demonstrating evidence of active arterial bleeding even more so. A 49-year-old male presented with acute onset right flank pain two hours following ESWL. CT scan with contrast revealed active contrast extravasation consistent with arterial bleeding. The patient was managed with arterial embolization and recovered uneventfully following a 4-day hospitalization.

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

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of new surgical innovations is complex and variably regulated, and historically the quality of surgical studies has been criticized. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term monitoring) Framework was established to provide a pathway for evaluating surgical innovations at each stage of their development in order to produce high quality surgical research. Since the inception of IDEAL in 2009, there has been no assessment of its use. In this review, we look at the uptake and usage of IDEAL by examining the published literature.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to identify all of the publications that cited IDEAL and included only those papers that intentionally used IDEAL as part of the study methodology. We then characterized these publications by year of publication, specialty, and geographical location. We performed a critical appraisal of Stage 1, 2a, and 2b studies in order to assess the degree to which authors have correctly followed the Framework and Recommendations.

RESULTS

We found 790 citations of IDEAL publications, and after abstract and full-text screening, 38 prospective studies for a surgical innovation that used IDEAL remained. We saw an overall increase in the uptake of IDEAL, with a predominance in urology and origin in the United Kingdom. The critical appraisal showed that although authors identified their project as using IDEAL, they often failed to include key IDEAL characteristics; this was especially true for the features unique to IDEAL Stages 2a and 2b.

CONCLUSION

It is evident from the large number of studies citing IDEAL that the importance and challenges of reporting surgical research is well recognized among researchers. There is growing enthusiasm for using IDEAL but the current level of understanding of the Recommendations is low. Clearer and more comprehensive explanation of the application of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations is needed to guide surgical researchers undertaking IDEAL based studies of surgical innovations.