Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review

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.

Readiness for implementation of novel digital health interventions for postoperative monitoring: a systematic review and clinical innovation network analysis

An increasing number of digital health interventions (DHIs) for remote postoperative monitoring have been developed and evaluated. This systematic review identifies DHIs for postoperative monitoring and evaluates their readiness for implementation into routine health care. Studies were defined according to idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term follow-up (IDEAL) stages of innovation. A novel clinical innovation network analysis used coauthorship and citations to examine collaboration and progression within the field. 126 DHIs were identified, with 101 (80%) being early stage innovations (IDEAL stage 1 and 2a). None of the DHIs identified had large-scale routine implementation. There is little evidence of collaboration, and there are clear omissions in the evaluation of feasibility, accessibility, and the health-care impact. Use of DHIs for postoperative monitoring remains at an early stage of innovation, with promising but generally low-quality supporting evidence. Comprehensive evaluation within high-quality, large-scale trials and real-world data are required to definitively establish readiness for routine implementation.

Surgeon's Eyes on the Relevant Surgical Target

The resolution of the naked eye has been a challenge for the neurosurgical endeavor since the very first attempts of cranial surgery, and advances have been achieved over the centuries, driven by a synergism between the application of emerging technology into the surgical environment and the expansion of the capabilities of neurosurgery. The understanding of the principles of the optical properties of lenses by Abbè (1840-1905) led to the introduction of loupes in the surgical practice, increasing the visual performance during macroscopic procedures. Modern neurosurgery began with the possibility of illumination and magnification of the surgical field as provided by the microscope. Pioneering contributions from Donaghy and Yasargil opened the way to the era of minimalism with reduction of operative corridors and surgical trauma through the adoption of the microsurgical technique. Almost at the same time, engineering mirabilia of Hopkins in terms of optics and lenses allowed for introduction of rigid and flexible endoscopes as a viable tool in neurosurgery. Nowadays, neurosurgeons are aware of and confident using effective and modern tools of visualization in their armamentarium. Herein we present a cogent review of the evolution of visualization tools in neurosurgery, with a special glimpse into the current development and future achievements.

Innovation in Neurosurgery: Lessons Learned, Obstacles, and Potential Funding Sources

Innovation is central to neurosurgery and has dramatically increased over the last twenty years. Although the specialty innovates as a whole, only 3-4.7% of practicing neurosurgeons hold patents. Various roadblocks to innovation impede this process such as lack of understanding, increasing regulatory complexity, and lack of funding. Newly emerging technologies allow us to understand how to innovate and how to learn from other medical specialties. By further understanding the process of innovation, and the funding that supports it, Neurosurgery can continue to hold innovation as one of its's central tenets.

Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability

While there have been great strides in endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches, particularly in the treatment of deep-sited brain and skull base tumours, the greatest technical barrier to their adoption has been the availability of suitable surgical instruments. This systematic review seeks to identify specialised instruments for these approaches and evaluate their safety, efficacy and usability. Conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched. Original research studies that reported the use of specialised mechanical instruments that manipulate tissue in human patients, cadavers or surgical models were included. The results identified 50 specialised instruments over 62 studies. Objective measures of safety were reported in 32 out of 62 studies, and 20 reported objective measures of efficacy. Instruments were broadly safe and effective with one instrument malfunction noted. Measures of usability were reported in 15 studies, with seven reporting on ergonomics and eight on the instruments learning curve. Instruments with reports on usability were generally considered to be ergonomic, though learning curve was often considered a disadvantage. Comparisons to standard instruments were made in eight studies and were generally favourable. While there are many specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery available, the evidence for their safety, efficacy and usability is limited with non-standardised reporting and few comparative studies to standard instruments. Future innovation should be tailored to unmet clinical needs, and evaluation guided by structured development processes.

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.

The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was created to provide a structured way for assessing and evaluating novel surgical techniques and devices.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to investigate the utilization of the IDEAL framework within neurosurgery, and to identify factors influencing implementation.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of the 7 key IDEAL papers on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases (2009-2019) was performed. A second journal-specific search then identified additional papers citing the IDEAL framework. Publications identified were screened by two independent reviewers to select neurosurgery-specific articles.

RESULTS

The citation search identified 1336 articles. The journal search identified another 16 articles. Following deduplication and review, 51 relevant articles remained; 14 primary papers (27%) and 37 secondary papers (73%). Of the primary papers, 5 (36%) papers applied the IDEAL framework to their research correctly; two were aligned to the pre-IDEAL stage, one to the Idea and Development stages, and two to the Exploration stage. Of the secondary papers, 21 (57%) explicitly discussed the IDEAL framework. Eighteen (86%) of these were supportive of implementing the framework, while one was not, and two were neutral.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of the IDEAL framework in neurosurgery has been slow, particularly for early-stage neurosurgical techniques and inventions. However, the largely positive reviews in secondary literature suggest potential for increased use that may be achieved with education and publicity.

Oversight and Ethical Regulation of Conflicts of Interest in Neurosurgery in the United States

BACKGROUND

Developmental incentives are fundamental to surgical progress, yet financial and professional incentives inherently create conflicts of interest (COI). Understanding how to manage COI held by neurosurgeons, industry, hospitals, and journal editors, without thwarting progress and innovation is critical.

OBJECTIVE

To present an overview of COI associated with innovation in neurosurgery, and review ways to manage these in an ethically sound manner.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed to assess conflicts of interest that affect neurosurgical innovation, and review ways to manage COI of various parties while adhering to ethical standards.

RESULTS

COI are inherent to collaboration and innovation, and are therefore an unavoidable component of neurosurgery. The lack of a clear distinction between clinical practice and innovation, ability to use devices off-label, and unstandardized disclosure requirements create inconsistencies in the way that conflicts of interest are handled. Additionally, lack of requirements to compare innovation to the standard of care and inherent bias that affects study design and interpretation can have profound effects on the medical literature. Conflicts of interest can have both direct and downstream effects on neurosurgical practice, and it is possible to manage them while improving the quality of research and innovation.

CONCLUSION

Conflicts of interest are inherent to surgical innovation, and can be handled in an ethically sound manner. Neurosurgeons, device companies, hospitals, and medical journals can take steps to proactively confront bias and ensure patient autonomy and safety. These steps can preserve public trust and ultimately improve evidence-based neurosurgical practice.

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.