Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation

Bronchoscopic treatment of early-stage peripheral lung cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review article focuses on bronchoscopic treatment of early-stage peripheral lung cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bronchoscopic treatment modalities have garnered considerable attention for early-stage lung cancer. Studies using photodynamic therapy, thermal vapor ablation, laser ablation, cryoablation, and intra-tumoral injection have recently been published. However, the evidence supporting these approaches largely derives from single-arm studies with small sample sizes. Based on the IDEAL-D framework, no technology has progressed passed the idea phase (1). The main weakness of these technologies to date is lack of evidence suggesting they can achieve local control. Presently, no bronchoscopic intervention for lung cancer has sufficient data to warrant its use as part of the standard of care.

SUMMARY

Despite notable progress, current technologies remain suboptimal, and there is insufficient evidence to support their use outside of a research setting.

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.

Values and Evidence in Gender-Affirming Care

This commentary responds to the article "What Is the Aim of Pediatric 'Gender-Affirming' Care?," by Moti Gorin, in the same issue of the journal. Gender-affirming care is often treated as exceptional and subject to heightened scrutiny. This exceptionalization results in its being held to stricter evidentiary standards than other forms of medical interventions are. But values and value judgments are inextricable from the practice of evidence-based medicine. For gender-affirming care, values shape what counts as "strong" evidence, whether the legitimacy of transgender identity is assumed versus treated as something to be investigated, how to characterize the testimonial accounts of trans and gender-nonconforming patients, and more. We argue that these kinds of questions are part of the practice of medicine, not exceptional to transgender people and gender-affirming care. However, litigation of evidence for gender-affirming care in state and national policy underscores the moral urgency of thinking carefully about what values ought to guide evidence.

Recommendations for optimising pilot and feasibility work in surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical trials are recognised as inherently challenging. Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) are increasingly acknowledged as a key method to optimise the design and conduct of randomised trials but remain limited in surgery. We used a mixed methods approach to develop recommendations for how surgical PAFS could be optimised.

METHODS

The findings from a quantitative analysis of funded surgical PAFS over a 10-year period and in-depth qualitative interviews with surgeons, methodologists and funders were triangulated and synthesised with available methodological guidance on PAFS.

RESULTS

The synthesis informed the development of an explanatory model describing root causes and compounding challenges that contribute to how and why surgical PAFS is not currently optimised. The four root causes identified include issues relating to (i) understanding the full scope of PAFS; (ii) design and conduct of PAFS; (iii) reporting of PAFS; and (iv) lack of appreciation of the value of PAFS by all stakeholder groups. Compounding challenges relate to both cultural issues and access to and interpretation of available methodological PAFS guidance. The study findings and explanatory model were used to inform the development of a practical guidance tool for surgeons and study teams to improve research practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimisation of PAFS in surgery requires a cultural shift in research practice amongst funders, academic institutions, regulatory bodies and journal editors, as well as amongst surgeons. Our 'Top Tips' guidance tool offers an accessible framework for surgeons designing PAFS. Adoption and utilisation of these recommendations will optimise surgical PAFS, facilitating successful and efficient future surgical trials.

Assessment of Advanced Diagnostic Bronchoscopy Outcomes for Peripheral Lung Lesions: A Delphi Consensus Definition of Diagnostic Yield and Recommendations for Patient-centered Study Designs. An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Research Statement

Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.

Feasibility of double-blinded, placebo-controlled interventional study for assessing catheter ablation efficacy in persistent atrial fibrillation: Insights from the ORBITA AF feasibility study

BACKGROUND

To date, there are no randomized, double-blinded clinical trials comparing catheter ablation to DC cardioversion (DCCV) with medical therapy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF). Conducting a large-scale trial to address this question presents considerable challenges, including recruitment, blinding, and implementation. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a definitive placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

This prospective trial was carried out at Barts Heart Centre, United Kingdom, employing a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled design. Twenty patients with PersAF (duration <2 years) were recruited, representing 10% of the proposed larger trial as determined by a power calculation. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either PVI ± DCCV (PVI group) or DCCV + Placebo (DCCV group). The primary endpoint of this feasibility study was to evaluate patient blinding. Patients remained unaware of their treatment allocation until end of study.

RESULTS

During the study, 35% of patients experienced recurrence of PersAF prior to completion of 12 months follow-up. Blinding was successfully maintained amongst both patients and medical staff. The DCCV group had a trend to higher recurrence and repeat procedure rate compared to the PVI group (recurrence of PersAF 60% vs 30%; p = .07 and repeat procedure 70% vs 40%; p = .4). The quality of life experienced by individuals in the PVI group showed improvement, as evidenced by enhanced scores on the AF specific questionnaire (AF PROMS) (3 [±4] vs 21 [±8]) and SF-12 mental-component raw score (51.4 [±7] vs 43.24 [±15]) in patients who maintained sinus rhythm at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

This feasibility study establishes the potential for conducting a blinded, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of PVI versus DCCV in patients with PersAF.

Evaluating Primary Treatment for People with Advanced Glaucoma: Five-Year Results of the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study

PURPOSE

To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or medical treatment produces better outcomes in terms of quality of life (QoL), clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients with advanced glaucoma.

DESIGN

Multicenter randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Between June 3, 2014, and May 31, 2017, 453 adults with newly diagnosed advanced open-angle glaucoma in at least 1 eye (Hodapp classification) were recruited from 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the United Kingdom. Two hundred twenty-seven were allocated to trabeculectomy, and 226 were allocated medical management.

METHODS

Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis to have either mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy or escalating medical management with intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing drops as the primary intervention and were followed up for 5 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was vision-specific QoL measured with the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were general health status, glaucoma-related QoL, clinical effectiveness (IOP, visual field, and visual acuity), and safety.

RESULTS

At 5 years, the mean ± standard deviation VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medication arms were 83.3 ± 15.5 and 81.3 ± 17.5, respectively, and the mean difference was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.99 to 4.00; P = 0.51). The mean IOPs were 12.07 ± 5.18 mmHg and 14.76 ± 4.14 mmHg, respectively, and the mean difference was -2.56 (95% CI, -3.80 to -1.32; P < 0.001). Glaucoma severity measured with visual field mean deviation were -14.30 ± 7.14 dB and -16.74 ± 6.78 dB, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.87 (95% CI, 0.87-2.87 dB; P < 0.001). Safety events occurred in 115 (52.2%) of patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 124 (57.9%) of patients in the medication arm (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.54). Serious adverse events were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years, the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study demonstrated that primary trabeculectomy surgery is more effective in lowering IOP and preventing disease progression than primary medical treatment in patients with advanced disease and has a similar safety profile.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favoured.

DESIGN

Systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review).

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews attempt to compare surgical to drug interventions.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted whether the review found any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eligible comparisons. Individual trial results were extracted directly from the systematic review.

SYNTHESIS

The outcomes of each meta-analysis were resynthesised into random-effects meta-analyses. Egger's test and excess significance were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% CIs, the surgical intervention was favoured in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favoured in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority in our reanalysis (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favour of surgery and 2 (9%) were in favour of drugs. There was no evidence of excess significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Though the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomised evidence is rare. More randomised trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are needed.

Lifecycle evaluation of medical devices: supporting or jeopardizing patient outcomes? A comparative analysis of evaluation models

OBJECTIVES

Lack of evidence regarding safety and effectiveness at market entry is driving the need to consider adopting a lifecycle approach to evaluating medical devices, but it is unclear what lifecycle evaluation means. This research sought to explore the tacit meanings of "lifecycle" and "lifecycle evaluation" as embodied within evaluation models/frameworks used for medical devices.

METHODS

Drawing on qualitative evidence synthesis methods and using an inductive approach, novel methods were developed to identify, appraise, analyze, and synthesize lifecycle evaluation models used for medical devices. Data was extracted (including purpose; audience; characterization; outputs; timing; and type of model) from key texts for coding, categorization, and comparison, exploring embodied meaning across four broad perspectives.

RESULTS

Fifty-two models were included in the synthesis. They demonstrated significant heterogeneity of meaning, form, scope, timing, and purpose. The "lifecycle" may represent a single stage, a series of stages, a cycle of innovation, or a system. "Lifecycle evaluation" focuses on the overarching goal of the stakeholder group, and may use a single or repeated evaluation to inform decision-making regarding the adoption of health technologies (Healthcare), resource allocation (Policymaking), investment in new product development or marketing (Trade and Industry), or market regulation (Regulation). The adoption of a lifecycle approach by regulators has resulted in the deferral of evidence generation to the post-market phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a "lifecycle evaluation" approach to inform reimbursement decision-making must not be allowed to further jeopardize evidence generation and patient safety by accepting inadequate evidence of safety and effectiveness for reimbursement decisions.

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.

Modification of the Suprachoroidal Buckling Technique for the Treatment of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment

PURPOSE

To describe modification of the suprachoroidal buckling technique for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD), which may improve the safety profile.

METHODS

A single-surgeon foot-pedal-controlled automated suprachoroidal injection (SCI) of sodium hyaluronate 1%, namely ProVisc (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) was used for the treatment of RRD. MicroDose Injection Kit (MedOne Surgical, Sarasota, FL) including a connector and a 1-mL syringe, designed for subretinal injection, was used to adapt Constellation Vision System (Alcon Laboratories) console for SCI of ProVisc from the 1-mL syringe.

RESULTS

This approach enables better surgeon control during SCI. Three highly myopic eyes of three patients with primary macula-on RRD and single superior peripheral retinal break were treated. Complete retinal reattachment was achieved in all eyes without complications.

CONCLUSION

Injecting ProVisc under foot-pedal control provides a more precise and potentially safer suprachoroidal buckling technique compared with the manual technique with more variable injection speed and pressure.

Application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate every stage of surgical innovation and generate high-quality research evidence, the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) framework was developed. This study aimed to explore the application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and identify factors limiting its dissemination.

METHODS

We conducted a citation search of 8 core IDEAL framework articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2009 to 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected articles related to hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1621 articles were identified through citation search. Following screening, 132 articles were finally retained, including 75 original studies (57%) and 57 secondary studies (43%). Of the original studies, only 10 articles (13%) accurately applied the IDEAL framework in methodology, distributed as follows: 1 in pre-IDEAL stage (0), 2 in Idea stage (1), 7 in Development stage (2a), 1 in Exploration stage (2b), and no articles in Assessment and Long-term study stages (3, 4). In the secondary studies, 36 articles (63%) mentioned and discussed the IDEAL framework, and all supported its application.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is increasingly widespread, as evidenced by its substantial citation in numerous articles. However, the utilization of the IDEAL framework remains predominantly confined to the early stages of innovation in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, coupled with instances of misapplication stemming from insufficient comprehension of the framework. Further efforts are necessary to extend the impact of the IDEAL framework and provide surgeons with comprehensive guidance for its judicious implementation.

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

How to perform prespecified subgroup analyses when using propensity score methods in the case of imbalanced subgroups

BACKGROUND

Looking for treatment-by-subset interaction on a right-censored outcome based on observational data using propensity-score (PS) modeling is of interest. However, there are still issues regarding its implementation, notably when the subsets are very imbalanced in terms of prognostic features and treatment prevalence.

METHODS

We conducted a simulation study to compare two main PS estimation strategies, performed either once on the whole sample ("across subset") or in each subset separately ("within subsets"). Several PS models and estimands are also investigated. We then illustrated those approaches on the motivating example, namely, evaluating the benefits of facial nerve resection in patients with parotid cancer in contact with the nerve, according to pretreatment facial palsy.

RESULTS

Our simulation study demonstrated that both strategies provide close results in terms of bias and variance of the estimated treatment effect, with a slight advantage for the "across subsets" strategy in very small samples, provided that interaction terms between the subset variable and other covariates influencing the choice of treatment are incorporated. PS matching without replacement resulted in biased estimates and should be avoided in the case of very imbalanced subsets.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessing heterogeneity in the treatment effect in small samples, the "across subsets" strategy of PS estimation is preferred. Then, either a PS matching with replacement or a weighting method must be used to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated or in the overlap population. In contrast, PS matching without replacement should be avoided in this setting.

Completeness of intervention description in invasive cardiology trials: an observational study of ClinicalTrials.gov registry and corresponding publications

Introduction

Non-pharmacological invasive interventions in cardiology are complex and often inadequately reported. Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide were developed to aid reporting and assessment of non-pharmacological interventions. The aim of our study was to assess the completeness of describing invasive cardiology interventions in clinical trials at the level of trial registration and corresponding journal article publication.

Methodology

We searched for clinical trials in invasive cardiology registered in Clinicaltrials.gov and corresponding journal publications. We used the 10-item TIDieR checklist for registries and 12-item checklist for journal publications.

Results

Out of 7,017 registry items retrieved by our search, 301 items were included in the analysis. The search for corresponding published articles yielded 192 journal publications. The majority of trials were funded by the industry and were medical device trials. The median number of reported TIDieR items was 4.5 (95% CI 4.49-4.51) out of 10, and while the corresponding journal articles reported 6.5 (95% CI 6.0-6.5) out of 12 TIDieR items.

Conclusion

Registration and reporting of invasive cardiology trials is often incomplete and adequate detailed description of the interventions is not provided. TIDieR checklist is an important tool which should be used to ensure rigorous reporting of non-pharmacological interventions in cardiology.

Two decades of surgical randomized controlled trials: worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality

BACKGROUND

RCTs are essential in guiding clinical decision-making but are difficult to perform, especially in surgery. This review assessed the trend in volume and methodological quality of published surgical RCTs over two decades.

METHODS

PubMed was searched systematically for surgical RCTs published in 1999, 2009, and 2019. The primary outcomes were volume of trials and RCTs with a low risk of bias. Secondary outcomes were clinical, geographical, and funding characteristics.

RESULTS

Some 1188 surgical RCTs were identified, of which 300 were published in 1999, 450 in 2009, and 438 in 2019. The most common subspecialty in 2019 was gastrointestinal surgery (50.7 per cent). The volume of surgical RCTs increased mostly in Asia (61, 159, and 199 trials), especially in China (7, 40, and 81). In 2019, countries with the highest relative volume of published surgical RCTs were Finland and the Netherlands. Between 2009 and 2019, the proportion of RCTs with a low risk of bias increased from 14.7 to 22.1 per cent (P = 0.004). In 2019, the proportion of trials with a low risk of bias was highest in Europe (30.5 per cent), with the UK and the Netherlands as leaders in this respect.

CONCLUSION

The volume of published surgical RCTs worldwide remained stable in the past decade but their methodological quality improved. Considerable geographical shifts were observed, with Asia and especially China leading in terms of volume. Individual European countries are leading in their relative volume and methodological quality of surgical RCTs.

Risk-of-bias assessment of the randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews on surgical treatments for breast cancer-related lymphedema: A mapping review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer treatment is the principal cause of lymphedema in the upper extremities. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) treatments were previously based on conservative therapy; surgical treatments are alternative options that could be highly beneficial, especially for patients who are not responsive to conservative therapy. The main aim of this study was to describe and critically assess the risk of bias of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on surgical treatment for BCRL.

METHODS

We conducted an evidence mapping review according to the methodology proposed by Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). An update was done for our previous systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Epistemonikos from the year 2000 onward. We assessed the risk of bias for the RCTs and SRs using the RoB-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively.

RESULTS

Two surgical RCTs and eight SRs were found among the 47 surgical studies that met the eligibility criteria. The overall risk-of-bias assessments of these studies were rated as some concerns (six outcomes) and high risk (three outcomes) for the measured outcomes among the RCTs and as a high risk of bias (five studies) and low risk (three studies) for the included SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall evidence in the literature on surgical treatment for BCRL is low, as there are few published RCTs and SRs, and the risk-of-bias assessment for the majority was rated as high risk of bias or with some concerns. High-quality studies are needed to improve evidence-based decision-making by surgeons and patients.

A novel atraumatic extraction technique using vestibular socket therapy for immediate implant placement: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

This randomized controlled clinical trial compared soft tissue changes following a novel vestibular atraumatic extraction technique (test group) versus the conventional incisal atraumatic extraction approach (control group) while implementing the vestibular socket therapy for immediate implant placement.

METHODS

Thirty patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring atraumatic extraction were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either test or control. Vertical soft tissue alterations in mm were measured at baseline and 12 months post-restoration using intraoral digital scans at three reference points, distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla, as well as pink esthetic scores (PESs) after 12 months.

RESULTS

Vestibular extraction technique showed significant soft tissue improvement and creeping when compared to incisal extraction (P < 0.05). The test group showed soft tissue measurements with a mean (± SD) of 0.26 (± 0.58), 0.39 (± 0.64), and 0.05 (± 0.37) mm for the mesial papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and distal papilla respectively. While the incisal extraction technique demonstrated gingival recession at the distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla of - 0.37 (± 0.54) mm, - 0.32 (± 0.68) mm, and - 0.39 (± 0.59) mm respectively. The overall PESs after 12 months were 12.67 (± 1.59) in vestibular extraction group, while incisal extraction group was 11.40 (± 1.40), with significant difference between them (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This investigation suggests that both studied techniques were successful in the atraumatic extraction of hopeless severely damaged teeth. The novel vestibular extraction technique might be considered an alternative reliable atraumatic extraction approach compared to the conventional incisal extraction when performing the vestibular socket protocol for immediate implant placement with soft tissue enhancement.

Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation

Uterus transplantation (UTx) research has been introduced in several countries, with trials in Sweden and the United States producing successful outcomes. The growing interest in developing UTx trials in other countries, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, and Australia, raises important questions regarding the ethics of surgical innovation research in the field of UTx. This paper examines the current state of UTx in the context of the surgical innovation paradigm and IDEAL framework and discusses the ethical challenges faced by those considering the introduction of new trials. We argue that UTx remains an experimental procedure at a relatively early stage of the IDEAL framework, especially in the context of de novo trials, where protocols are likely to deviate from those used previously and where researchers are likely to have limited experience of UTx. We conclude that countries considering the introduction of UTx trials should build on the strengths of the reported outcomes to consolidate the evidence base and shed light on the uncertainties of the procedure. Authorities responsible for the ethical governance of UTx trials are advised to draw on the ethical framework used in the oversight of surgical innovation.

Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions

AIM

To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry.

METHODS

We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context.

FINDINGS

Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

Surgical trial design for incorporating the effects of learning: what is the current methodological guidance, and is it sufficient?

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions are complex. Key elements of this complexity are the surgeon and their learning curve. They pose methodological challenges in the design, analysis and interpretation of surgical RCTs. We identify, summarise, and critically examine current guidance about how to incorporate learning curves in the design and analysis of RCTs in surgery.

EXAMINING CURRENT GUIDANCE

Current guidance presumes that randomisation must be between levels of just one treatment component, and that the evaluation of comparative effectiveness will be made via the average treatment effect (ATE). It considers how learning effects affect the ATE, and suggests solutions which seek to define the target population such that the ATE is a meaningful quantity to guide practice. We argue that these are solutions to a flawed formulation of the problem, and are inadequate for policymaking in this setting.

REFORMULATING THE PROBLEM

The premise that surgical RCTs are limited to single-component comparisons, evaluated via the ATE, has skewed the methodological discussion. Forcing a multi-component intervention, such as surgery, into the framework of the conventional RCT design ignores its factorial nature. We briefly discuss the multiphase optimisation strategy (MOST), which for a Stage 3 trial would endorse a factorial design. This would provide a wealth of information to inform nuanced policy but would likely be infeasible in this setting. We discuss in more depth the benefits of targeting the ATE conditional on operating surgeon experience (CATE). The value of estimating the CATE for exploring learning effects has been previously recognised, but with discussion limited to analysis methods only. The robustness and precision of such analyses can be ensured via the trial design, and we argue that trial designs targeting CATE represent a clear gap in current guidance.

CONCLUSION

Trial designs that facilitate robust, precise estimation of the CATE would allow for more nuanced policymaking, leading to patient benefit. No such designs are currently forthcoming. Further research in trial design to facilitate the estimation of the CATE is needed.

Strategies to minimise and monitor biases and imbalances by arm in surgical cluster randomised trials: evidence from ChEETAh, a trial in seven low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCT) present challenges regarding risks of bias and chance imbalances by arm. This paper reports strategies to minimise and monitor biases and imbalances in the ChEETAh cRCT.

METHODS

ChEETAh was an international cRCT (hospitals as clusters) evaluating whether changing sterile gloves and instruments prior to abdominal wound closure reduces surgical site infection at 30 days postoperative. ChEETAh planned to recruit 12,800 consecutive patients from 64 hospitals in seven low-middle income countries. Eight strategies to minimise and monitor bias were pre-specified: (1) minimum of 4 hospitals per country; (2) pre-randomisation identification of units of exposure (operating theatres, lists, teams or sessions) within clusters; (3) minimisation of randomisation by country and hospital type; (4) site training delivered after randomisation; (5) dedicated 'warm-up week' to train teams; (6) trial specific sticker and patient register to monitor consecutive patient identification; (7) monitoring characteristics of patients and units of exposure; and (8) low-burden outcome-assessment.

RESULTS

This analysis includes 10,686 patients from 70 clusters. The results aligned to the eight strategies were (1) 6 out of 7 countries included ≥ 4 hospitals; (2) 87.1% (61/70) of hospitals maintained their planned operating theatres (82% [27/33] and 92% [34/37] in the intervention and control arms); (3) minimisation maintained balance of key factors in both arms; (4) post-randomisation training was conducted for all hospitals; (5) the 'warm-up week' was conducted at all sites, and feedback used to refine processes; (6) the sticker and trial register were maintained, with an overall inclusion of 98.1% (10,686/10,894) of eligible patients; (7) monitoring allowed swift identification of problems in patient inclusion and key patient characteristics were reported: malignancy (20.3% intervention vs 12.6% control), midline incisions (68.4% vs 58.9%) and elective surgery (52.4% vs 42.6%); and (8) 0.4% (41/9187) of patients refused consent for outcome assessment.

CONCLUSION

cRCTs in surgery have several potential sources of bias that include varying units of exposure and the need for consecutive inclusion of all eligible patients across complex settings. We report a system that monitored and minimised the risks of bias and imbalances by arm, with important lessons for future cRCTs within hospitals.

Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

High-quality surgical care is vital to deliver the excellent outcomes patients deserve following surgical treatment. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are based on a multicentre model for improving healthcare. They are increasingly used but their effectiveness in the context of surgical services is unclear. This review assessed effectiveness of QICs in National Health Service (NHS) surgical settings, and identified factors that influenced implementation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as grey literature, was conducted in January 2022 to identify evaluations of QICs in NHS surgical settings. Data were extracted on the intervention, setting, study results and factors that were identified as facilitators or barriers. These were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of study reports was assessed using Quality Improvement Minimum Criteria Set.

RESULTS

Fifteen reports on 10 QICs met inclusion criteria. The evaluations used study designs of different strength, with one using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eight studies reported the QIC had been successful in achieving their principal aims, which covered a mix of patient outcomes and process indicators. The study based on the RCT found the QIC was not successful (no improvement in patient outcomes). Each article reported a range of facilitators and barriers to effectiveness of implementation of the QIC, which were spread across the CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals and process). There were few barriers reported in the intervention domain that related to the QIC. There was no clear relationship between numbers of facilitators and barriers reported and effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies have reported QICs to be effective in increasingly complex contexts, but their results must be treated with caution. The evaluations often used weak study designs and the quality of reports was variable. Evaluation with strong study design should be integral to future QICs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022324970.

Upper Urinary Tract Surgery Through Robotic Single-Port System Vs Multiport and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: We aimed to make a general comparison between the safety and feasibility of a novel robotic platform, da Vinci^® single-port (SP) system with conventional robotic multiport (MP) and laparoendoscopic single-site systems (da Vinci Xi or Si) in three upper urinary tract procedures including robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP), and robot-assisted adrenalectomy (RA). Materials and Methods: After systematical searching of the literature up to October 2022 in PubMed^®, Web of Science™, and the Cochrane Library and Scopus^® databases, we extracted and processed the data in eligible literature for operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), morphine milligram equivalent (MME), postoperative complications, and positive surgical margins (PSMs). Results: A total of 752 patients who underwent robotic surgery for SP or MP from 11 articles were included in this meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in operative time for either RAPN (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to 0.03) or RA (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.08 to 0.06). However, for RAP, SP can save operation time (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.22). The introduction of SP did not increase complications to any degree, including total complication (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.52-1.53), minor complication (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13-1.36), and major complication (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.34-2.09), nor the incidence of PSMs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54-1.99). It is worth noting that although the SP system increased WIT (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.62), it had the benefit of reducing intraoperative pain for RAPN with regard of MME (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09). Conclusions: In terms of postoperative pain, SP robotic surgery is beneficial for RAPN but will make WIT prolonged. RAP is probably the most suitable upper urinary tract procedure for which SP is an option, which helps to shorten the surgery time and achieve a minimally invasive wound at the same time. Our study has been registered in PROSPERO (Registration No.: CRD42022350317).

Targeting patient recovery priorities in degenerative cervical myelopathy: design and rationale for the RECEDE-Myelopathy trial-study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition of symptomatic cervical spinal cord compression secondary to degenerative changes in spinal structures leading to a mechanical stress injury of the spinal cord. RECEDE-Myelopathy aims to test the disease-modulating activity of the phosphodiesterase 3/phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor Ibudilast as an adjuvant to surgical decompression in DCM.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RECEDE-Myelopathy is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to receive either 60-100 mg Ibudilast or placebo starting within 10 weeks prior to surgery and continuing for 24 weeks after surgery for a maximum of 34 weeks. Adults with DCM, who have a modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score 8-14 inclusive and are scheduled for their first decompressive surgery are eligible for inclusion. The coprimary endpoints are pain measured on a visual analogue scale and physical function measured by the mJOA score at 6 months after surgery. Clinical assessments will be undertaken preoperatively, postoperatively and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. We hypothesise that adjuvant therapy with Ibudilast leads to a meaningful and additional improvement in either pain or function, as compared with standard routine care.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical trial protocol V.2.2 October 2020.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from HRA-Wales.The results will be presented at an international and national scientific conferences and in a peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN16682024.

Comparison between Magneto-Dynamic, Piezoelectric, and Conventional Surgery for Dental Extractions: A Pilot Study

This pilot split-mouth study aimed to evaluate and compare early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes in post-extraction sockets after dental extraction performed with a Magnetic Mallet (MM), piezosurgery, and conventional instruments (EudraCT 2022-003135-25). Twenty-two patients requiring the extraction of three non-adjacent teeth were included. Each tooth was randomly assigned to a specific treatment (control, MM, or piezosurgery). Outcome measures were the severity of symptoms after surgery, wound healing assessed at the 10-days follow-up visit, and the time taken to complete each procedure (excluding suturing). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests were performed to evaluate eventual differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the compared methods in postoperative pain and healing, and no additional complications were reported. MM required significantly less time to perform a tooth extraction, followed by conventional instruments and piezosurgery, in increasing order (p < 0.05). Overall, the present findings suggest the use of MM and piezosurgery as valid options for dental extractions. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm and extend this study’s results, facilitating the selection of the optimal method for an individual patient depending on the patient’s needs and preferences.

The role of patient advocates and sarcoma community initiatives in musculoskeletal oncology. Moving towards Evidence-Based Advocacy to empower Evidence-Based Medicine

Musculoskeletal sarcomas are rare cancers that as the whole family of sarcomas pose several challenges at different levels, ranging from medical knowledge to clinical research and policymaking. Addressing these challenges, necessarily calls for the inclusion of patient perspective inside the decision-making processes of every area that contributes to treatment improvement, from the provision of high-quality services by healthcare organisations to research issues. Without patient-provided inputs to inform decisions, the current paradigm of patient-centred care makes no sense and sounds at the least irrational if not unethical. Putting PROMs on "centre stage" in cancer research and care, could allow to build a truly Evidence Based Advocacy (EBA) and therefore to empower Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).

Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews

Objectives

To examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons, and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favored.

Design

Systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review).

Data sources

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

Eligibility criteria and synthesis of results

Using the search term "surg*" in CDSR, we retrieved systematic reviews of surgical interventions. Abstracts were subsequently screened to find systematic reviews that aimed to compare surgical to drug interventions; and then, among them, those that included any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for such comparisons. Trial results data were extracted manually and synthesized into random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

Overall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs with data) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% confidence intervals, the surgical intervention was favored in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favored in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favor of surgery, and 2 (9%) were in favor of drugs.

Conclusions

Though the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomized evidence is rare. More randomized trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are needed.

Protocol registration

https://osf.io/p9x3j.

A standardized measurement instrument was recommended for evaluating operator experience in complex healthcare interventions

OBJECTIVE

During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators' experience of surgical innovation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators' experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group.

RESULTS

Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed 'psychological' experiences and 'usability'. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated 'sufficient' (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or 'indeterminate' (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument.

CONCLUSION

The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators' experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required.

Complications After Uterosacral Ligament Suspension Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation at Vaginal Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

IMPORTANCE

Apical suspension, including uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF), is the standard of care at vaginal hysterectomy. Although the equivalence of anatomic and clinical outcomes after USLS and SSLF is established, comparing surgical complications specific to patients undergoing concurrent vaginal hysterectomy further informs decision making regarding operative approach.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare complications in the first 30 days after surgery in patients undergoing USLS and SSLF at vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective, population-based cohort study used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients undergoing USLS or SSLF at vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of surgical complications excluding urinary tract infection (UTI). Odds of the primary outcome, readmission, reoperation, and UTI were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 10,210 eligible patients, 7,127 patients underwent USLS and 3,083 patients underwent SSLF. Uterosacral ligament suspension was associated with a 25% lower odds of the composite complication outcome that excluded UTI compared with SSLF (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.90). Urinary tract infection was the most common complication and occurred more commonly in patients undergoing USLS (6.5% vs 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.56). There was no significant difference in Clavien-Dindo class IV complications, readmission, or reoperation between approaches.

CONCLUSION

Uterosacral ligament suspension was associated with a lower odds of complications excluding UTI compared with SSLF. Urinary tract infection was more common among patients having USLS. The odds of serious complications, readmission, and reoperation were low and comparable between groups.

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Matching in the Orthopedic Literature

Background

Propensity score matching (PSM) is a statistical technique used to reduce bias in observational studies by controlling for measured confounders. Given its complexity and popularity, it is imperative that researchers comprehensively report their methodologies to ensure accurate interpretation and reproducibility.

Purpose

This systematic review sought to define how often PSM has been used in recent orthopedic research and to describe how such studies reported their methods. Secondary aims included analyzing study reproducibility, bibliometric factors associated with reproducibility, and associations between methodology and the reporting of statistically significant results.

Methods

PubMed and Embase databases were queried for studies containing "propensity score" and "match*" published in 20 orthopedic journals prior to 2020. All studies meeting inclusion criteria were used for trend analysis. Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were used for analysis of reporting quality and reproducibility.

Results

In all, 261 studies were included for trend analysis, and 162 studies underwent full-text review. The proportion of orthopedic studies using PSM significantly increased over time. Seventy-one (41%) articles did not provide justification for covariate selection. The majority of studies illustrated covariate balance through P values. We found that 19% of the studies were fully reproducible. Most studies failed to report the use of replacement (67.3%) or independent or paired statistical methods (34.0%). Studies reporting standardized mean differences to illustrate covariate balance were less likely to report statistically significant results.

Conclusion

Despite the increased use of PSM in orthopedic research, observational studies employing PSM have largely failed to adequately report their methodology.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised surgical trials: a review of existing guidance

BACKGROUND

The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials.

METHODS

A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed.

Study Types in Orthopaedics Research: Is My Study Design Appropriate for the Research Question?

When performing orthopaedic clinical research, alternative study designs can be more appropriate depending on the research question, availability of data, and feasibility. The most common observational study designs in total joint arthroplasty research are cohort and cross-sectional studies. This article describes methodological considerations for different study designs with examples from the total joint arthroplasty literature. We highlight the advantages and feasibility of experimental and observational study designs using real-world examples. We illustrate how to avoid common mistakes, such as incorrect labeling of matched cohort studies as case-control studies. We further guide investigators through a step-by-step design of a case-control study. We conclude with considerations when choosing between alternative study designs. Please visit the followinghttps://youtu.be/Zvce61cMYi8for videos that explain the highlights of the article in practical terms.

Magnetic-assisted laparoscopic liver transplantation in swine

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic technology has achieved rapid development in the surgical field, it has not been applied to liver transplantation, primarily because of difficulties associated with laparoscopic vascular anastomosis. In this study, we introduced a new magnetic-assisted vascular anastomosis technique and explored its application in laparoscopic liver transplantation in pigs.

METHODS

Two sets of magnetic vascular anastomosis rings (MVARs) with different diameters were developed. One set was used for anastomosis of the suprahepatic vena cava (SHVC) and the other set was used for anastomosis of the infrahepatic vena cava (IHVC) and portal vein (PV). Six laparoscopic orthotopic liver transplantations were performed in pigs. Donor liver was obtained via open surgery. Hepatectomy was performed in the recipients through laparoscopic surgery. Anastomosis of the SHVC was performed using hand-assisted magnetic anastomosis, and the anastomosis of the IHVC and PV was performed by magnetic anastomosis with or without hand assistance.

RESULTS

Liver transplants were successfully performed in five of the six cases. Postoperative ultrasonographic examination showed that the portal inflow was smooth. However, PV bending and blood flow obstruction occurred in one case because the MVARs were attached to each other. The durations of loading of MVAR in the laparoscope group and manual assistance group for IHVC and PV were 13 ± 5 vs. 5 ± 1 min (P < 0.01) and 10 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 1 min (P < 0.05), respectively. The durations of MVAR anastomosis in the laparoscope group and manual assistance group for IHVC and PV were 5 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 min (P < 0.01), and 5 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 min (P < 0.01), respectively. The anhepatic phase was 43 ± 4 min in the laparoscope group and 23 ± 2 min in the manual assistance group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that magnetic-assisted laparoscopic liver transplantation can be successfully carried out in pigs.

Endoscopic Resection Versus Surgery in the Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim

Endoscopic resection (ER) is the preferred approach to treat early gastric cancer (EGC) in patients without suspected lymph node involvement and that meet the criteria for ER. Surgery is a more aggressive treatment, but it may be associated with less recurrence and the need for reintervention. Previous meta-analyses comparing ER with surgery for EGC did not incorporate the most recent studies, making accurate conclusions not possible.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine complete resection, length of hospital stay (LOHS), adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, recurrence, 5-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with EGC.

Results

A total of 29 cohorts studies involving 20559 patients were included. The ER (n = 7709) group was associated with a lower incidence of AEs (RD = -0.07, 95%CI = -0.1, -0.04, p < 0.0001) and shorter LOHS (95% CI -5.89, -5.32; p < 0,00001) compared to surgery (n = 12850). However, ER was associated with lower complete resection rates (RD = -0.1, 95%CI = -0.15, -0.06; p < 0.00001) and higher rates of recurrence (RD = 0.07, 95%CI = 0.06; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between surgery and ER in 5-year OS (RD = -0.01, 95%CI = -0.04, 0.02; p = 0.38), 5-year CSS (RD = 0.01, 95%CI = 0.00, 0.02; p < 0.17), and incidence of serious AEs (RD = -0.03, 95%CI = -0.08, 0.01; p = 0.13).

Conclusions

ER and surgery are safe and effective treatments for EGC. ER provides lower rates of AEs and shorter LOHS compared to surgery. Although ER is associated with lower complete resection rates and a higher risk of recurrence, the OS and CSS were similar between both approaches.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021255328.

How to assess applicability and methodological quality of comparative studies of operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery

PURPOSE

It is challenging to generate and subsequently implement high-quality evidence in surgical practice. A first step would be to grade the strengths and weaknesses of surgical evidence and appraise risk of bias and applicability. Here, we described items that are common to different risk-of-bias tools. We explained how these could be used to assess comparative operative intervention studies in orthopedic trauma surgery, and how these relate to applicability of results.

METHODS

We extracted information from the Cochrane risk-of-bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I), and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria and derived a concisely formulated set of items with signaling questions tailored to operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery.

RESULTS

The established set contained nine items: population, intervention, comparator, outcome, confounding, missing data and selection bias, intervention status, outcome assessment, and pre-specification of analysis. Each item can be assessed using signaling questions and was explained using good practice examples of operative intervention studies in orthopedic trauma surgery.

CONCLUSION

The set of items will be useful to form a first judgment on studies, for example when including them in a systematic review. Existing risk of bias tools can be used for further evaluation of methodological quality. Additionally, the proposed set of items and signaling questions might be a helpful starting point for peer reviewers and clinical readers.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Challenges Encountered in Surgical Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Need for Methodological Improvement of Future Studies

BACKGROUND

Investigating neurosurgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (TBI) involves complex methodological and practical challenges. In the present report, we have provided an overview of the current state of neurosurgical TBI research and discussed the key challenges and possible solutions.

METHODS

The content of our report was based on an extensive literature review and personal knowledge and expert opinions of senior neurosurgeon researchers and epidemiologists.

RESULTS

Current best practice research strategies include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative effectiveness research. The performance of RCTs has been complicated by the heterogeneity of TBI patient populations with the associated sample size requirements, the traditional eminence-based neurosurgical culture, inadequate research budgets, and the often acutely life-threatening setting of severe TBI. Statistical corrections can mitigate the effects of heterogeneity, and increasing awareness of clinical equipoise and informed consent alternatives can improve trial efficiency. The substantial confounding by indication, which limits the interpretability of observational research, can be circumvented by using an instrumental variable analysis. Traditional TBI outcome measures remain relevant but do not adequately capture the subtleties of well-being, suggesting a need for multidimensional approaches to outcome assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

In settings in which traditional RCTs are difficult to conduct and substantial confounding by indication can be present, observational studies using an instrumental variable analysis and "pragmatic" RCTs are promising alternatives. Embedding TBI research into standard clinical practice should be more frequently considered but will require fundamental modifications to the current health care system. Finally, multimodality outcome assessment will be key to improving future surgical and nonsurgical TBI research.

Identification of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for surgical innovation: a targeted review of case studies of novel surgical devices

OBJECTIVE

Outcome selection and reporting in studies of novel surgical procedures and devices lacks standardisation, hindering safe and effective evaluation. A core outcome set (COS) to measure and report in all studies of surgical innovation is needed. We explored outcomes in a specific sample of innovative surgical device case studies to identify outcome domains specifically relevant to innovation to inform the development of a COS.

DESIGN

A targeted review of 11 purposive selected case studies of innovative surgical devices.

METHODS

Electronic database searches in PubMed (July 2018) identified publications reporting the introduction and evaluation of each device. Outcomes were extracted and categorised into domains until no new domains were conceptualised. Outcomes specifically relevant to evaluating innovation were further scrutinised.

RESULTS

112 relevant publications were identified, and 5926 outcomes extracted. Heterogeneity in study type, outcome selection and reporting was observed across surgical devices. Categorisation of outcomes was performed for 2689 (45.4%) outcomes into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of innovation (n=66; 2.5%) were further categorised as surgeon/operator experience (n=40; 1.5%), unanticipated events (n=15, 0.6%) and modifications (n=11; 0.4%).

CONCLUSION

Outcome domains unique to evaluating innovative surgical devices have been identified. Findings have been combined with multiple other data sources relevant to the evaluation of surgical innovation to inform the development of a COS to measure and report in all studies evaluating novel surgical procedures/devices.

The Evolution of Retzius-Sparing Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: An IDEAL Perspective

PURPOSE

The Retzius-sparing (RS) approach represents an important surgical innovation in how robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is performed.The aim of this study was to examine to what extent its development has followed the Idea, Development, Evolution, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies up to the 18th of March 2021. Abstracted data-points included authorship, year of publication, study design, reported endpoints, and length-of follow-up. We mapped each study to the five IDEAL stages of surgical innovation using published criteria.

RESULTS

Of 415 references, 118 were included in our analysis. Five academic centers authored over 50% of all study reports, with the groups from Seoul (24; 20.3%), Milan (15; 12.7%) and Ninjang (10; 8.5%) being the main contributors. Approximately 40% of studies (50/118) were reported as full-text publications. Most of the reports mapped to retrospective studies (97/118; 82.2%) with approximately one-third (31/97; 32.0%) reporting the use of prospectively collected data. Cumulatively, 17,974 RS-RALP were reported on. Of those, 13,929 were unique cases. Approximately 23% of cases were reported in multiple publications (4,045/17,974). We mapped two, 12, and three studies to the Idea, Assessment and Long-term study stages, respectively, and zero to the Development and Evaluation stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Few reported studies followed the IDEAL stages for surgical innovation; none addressed the stages of Development and Evaluation. Future systematic, prospectively planned assessments would be helpful to refine the approach and address issues related to the surgical learning curve.