A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Trans-thoracic Liver Resection to Examine Intervention Description, Governance, and Outcome Reporting of an Innovative Technique

A systematic methodology review of fluorescence-guided cancer surgery to inform the development of a core master protocol and outcome set

BACKGROUND

Fluorescence-guided precision cancer surgery may improve survival and minimize patient morbidity. Efficient development of promising interventions is however hindered by a lack of common methodology. This methodology review aimed to synthesize descriptions of technique, governance processes, surgical learning and outcome reporting in studies of fluorescence-guided cancer surgery to provide guidance for the harmonized design of future studies.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases from 2016-2020 identified studies of all designs describing the use of fluorescence in cancer surgery. Dual screening and data extraction was conducted by two independent teams.

RESULTS

Of 13,108 screened articles, 426 full text articles were included. The number of publications per year increased from 66 in 2016 to 115 in 2020. Indocyanine green was the most commonly used fluorescence agent (391, 91.8%). The most common reported purpose of fluorescence guided surgery was for lymph node mapping (195, 5%) and non-specific tumour visualization (94, 2%). Reporting about surgical learning and governance processes incomplete. A total of 2,577 verbatim outcomes were identified, with the commonly reported outcome lymph node detection (796, 30%). Measures of recurrence (32, 1.2%), change in operative plan (23, 0.9%), health economics (2, 0.1%), learning curve (2, 0.1%) and quality of life (2, 0.1%) were rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

There was evidence of methodological heterogeneity that may hinder efficient evaluation of fluorescence surgery. Harmonization of the design of future studies may streamline innovation.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Transthoracic transdiaphragmatic approach in laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in a patient with severe obesity and history of deceased donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The transthoracic transdiaphragmatic approach (TTA) for hepatic tumors in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is not usually employed because the caudal approach via the abdominal cavity is the gold standard in LLRs. Here, we present a case of LLR via TTA for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a patient with severe obesity and a history of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The patient, a 64-year-old man with severe obesity and a history of DDLT, was referred to our hospital to undergo LLR for HCC located at the cranial side of segment IV. We decided to perform LLR via TTA because of concerns about the effect of severe adhesion, the difficulty of encircling the hepatoduodenal ligament, and the impact of severe obesity on the completion of LLR. Under general anesthesia with differential lung ventilation, we started to perform transthoracic ultrasonography to determine the diaphragmatic transection line. Then, we transected the diaphragm and revealed the tumor. We marked the parenchymal transection line with a 1-cm margin and then employed precoagulation of the hepatic parenchyma along the transection line. We performed parenchymal transection and clipped the responsible Glissonean pedicle at the bottom of the tumor. The diaphragm was closed using 3-0 nonabsorbable sutures with suture clips after the resected specimen was extracted.

DISCUSSION

We successfully performed LLR via TTA without hepatic inflow control. However, further studies are warranted to define the indications and recommendations for TTA in LLRs in the near future.

Reporting guidelines for surgical technique could be improved: a scoping review and a call for action

OBJECTIVES

To identify reporting guidelines related to surgical technique and propose recommendations for areas that require improvement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A protocol-guided scoping review was conducted. A literature search of MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, Google Scholar, and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations was conducted to identify surgical technique reporting guidelines published up to December 31, 2021.

RESULTS

We finally included 55 surgical technique reporting guidelines, vascular surgery (n = 18, 32.7%) was the most common among the clinical specialties covered. The included guidelines generally showed a low degree of international and multidisciplinary cooperation. Few guidelines provided a detailed development process (n = 14, 25.5%), conducted a systematic literature review (n = 13, 23.6%), used the Delphi method (n = 4, 7.3%), or described post-publication strategy (n = 6, 10.9%). The vast majority guidelines focused on the reporting of intraoperative period (n = 50, 90.9%). However, of the guidelines requiring detailed descriptions of surgical technique methodology (n = 43, 78.2%), most failed to provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate description.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates significant deficiencies in the development methodology and practicality of reporting guidelines for surgical technique. A standardized reporting guideline that is developed rigorously and focuses on details of surgical technique may serve as a necessary impetus for change.

Pure abdominal laparoscopic approach versus thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic approach: What is the best technique for liver resection in segment 7 and segment 8? An answer from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris experience with short- and long-term outcome evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lesions in segments 7 and 8 are a challenge during standard laparoscopic liver resection. The addition of transthoracic trocars could be useful in the standard abdominal approach for laparoscopic liver resection. We report our experience with a thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach for liver resection with the aim of comparing short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 1,003 laparoscopic liver resections in a prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We compared patient outcomes intraoperatively and postoperatively. We analyzed the long-term outcomes of the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. Propensity score matching 1:1 was performed based on the following variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, multiple or single liver resection, lesion >50 mm or <50 mm, presence of solitary or multiple lesions, T stage, and N stage.

RESULTS

The standard abdominal approach was used in 110 laparoscopic liver resections, and the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was used in 62 laparoscopic liver resections. The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was associated with better intraoperative results (less blood loss and no need for conversion to open surgery). The R1s rate for segmentectomy 7 and 8 was lower in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in the entire group and in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. In the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup, the 3- and 5-year overall survival was 90% and 80% in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach group and 76% and 52% in the standard abdominal approach group, respectively (P = .02). In univariate and multivariate analysis, the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was a significant factor that positively affected disease-free survival and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in laparoscopic liver resection in segments 7 and 8 is safe and feasible, and it has demonstrated better oncologic outcomes than the pure abdominal approach, especially in segmentectomy.

Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies

BACKGROUND

The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval.

RESULTS

Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.

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.

Safety and transparency in surgical innovation

Advances in healthcare require safe and transparent innovation. Currently in surgery it can be difficult to identify when innovation is occurring because of inconsistent oversight and reporting. New ways of identifying, monitoring and reporting surgical innovation are called for in order to optimise the process.