Development and perspectives of randomized controlled trials in surgery

Innovation and Tribulation in the History of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery

Despite persistent critiques of the rigor of surgical research, surgeons have actually pursued careful empirical studies for centuries. Their work has enriched not only surgical science but also the development of evidencebased medicine. From conducting landmark controlled trials, to using statistics, alternate patient allocation, randomization, and sham controls, surgeons have long embraced innovative trial approaches and played important roles in the development of key methods of RCTs. However, historical contexts unique to surgery have shaped the implementation of RCTs in this field. Unlike the history of pharmaceuticals, in which substantial research funding has been devoted to testing new drugs before their approval, surgical trials have followed a different trajectory. New operations have repeatedly come into wide use in the absence of RCTs. On many occasions, when established procedures have become controversial, surgeons have then marshaled the resources to conduct RCTs reassessing the operations. Such trials have triggered powerful debates in which proponents of surgical RCTs battled against ingrained practices and preferences. In such cases, RCTs often were not decisive factors in determining the fate of surgical practices but supporting tools that followed and reflected changes in surgical judgment already underway. Surgical trialists also have encountered specific, recurring challenges, especially with the methodological and ethical complexity of blinded and sham-controlled trials. The history of surgical trials thus reveals major contributions from surgeons to the advancement of evidence-based medicine, as well as ongoing challenges. Strengthened and systematic trial support could advance the future of surgical RCTs.

EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Under the mandate of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) a guideline on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery has been developed. The primary focus of this guideline is patient safety, efficacy, and effectiveness.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to develop recommendations for the assessment and introduction of surgical innovations. A consensus development conference (CDC) took place in May 2009 using the method of a nominal group process (NGP). The recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Prague, Czech Republic, on June 18th, 2009 for discussion and further input. After further Delphi processes between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon.

RESULTS

The development and implementation of innovations in surgery are addressed in five sections: (1) definition of an innovation, (2) preclinical and (3) clinical scientific development, (4) scientific approval, and (5) implementation along with monitoring. Within the present guideline each of the sections and several steps are defined, and several recommendations based on available evidence have been agreed within each category. A comprehensive workflow of the different steps is given in an algorithm. In addition, issues of health technology assessment (HTA) serving to estimate efficiency followed by ethical directives are given.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovations into clinical practice should be introduced with the highest possible grade of safety for the patient (nil nocere: do no harm). The recommendations can contribute to the attainment of this objective without preventing future promising diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in the field of surgery and allied techniques.

Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial

PURPOSE

The primary responsibility of institutional review boards is to protect human research subjects and, therefore, ensure that studies are performed in accordance with a standard set of ethical principles. A number of groups have compared the responses of institutional review boards in multicenter clinical trials involving medical therapies. To our knowledge no such studies have been performed to date of trials investigating surgical intervention. We investigated the consistency of the recommendations issued by various institutional review boards in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a multicenter trial with a uniform consent and study protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained the institutional review board response from 6 of the 7 participating institutions after initial submission of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study protocol and classified the responses. We then redistributed the approved protocols to an institutional review board at another participating institution and analyzed that review of these protocols.

RESULTS

We found that the number and type of responses required for institutional review board approval of an identical study protocol varied significantly among participating institutions. We also found that institutional review board responses were inconsistent in the second review, although all protocols were ultimately approved.

CONCLUSIONS

The current system of local institutional review board review in the context of a multicenter surgical trial is inefficient in the review process and may not provide expertise for overseeing surgical trials. Based on these results a central surgical institutional review board may be needed to improve the ethical review process in multicenter trials.