1
|
Huttman MM, Smith AN, Robertson HF, Purves R, Biggs SE, Dewi F, Dixon LK, Kirkham EN, Jones CS, Ramirez J, Scroggie DL, Pathak S, Blencowe NS. A Systematic Review to Summarise and Appraise the Reporting of Surgical Innovation: a Case Study in Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Obes Surg 2024; 34:3058-3070. [PMID: 38898310 PMCID: PMC11289006 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-024-07329-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2024] [Revised: 05/27/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is an innovative alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches. Literature has been published investigating its safety/efficacy; however, the quality of reporting is uncertain. This systematic review used the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework to assess the reporting quality of available literature. A narrative summary was formulated, assessing how comprehensively governance/ethics, patient selection, demographics, surgeon expertise/training, technique description and outcomes were reported. Forty-seven studies published between 2005 and 2024 were included. There was incomplete/inconsistent reporting of governance/ethics, patient selection, surgeon expertise/training and technique description, with heterogenous outcome reporting. RRYGB reporting was poor and did not align with IDEAL guidance. Robust prospective studies reporting findings using IDEAL/other guidance are required to facilitate safe widespread adoption of RRYGB and other surgical innovations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc M Huttman
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
- University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, NW12PB, UK
| | - Alexander N Smith
- Peterborough City Hospital, Northwest Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, PE39GZ, UK
| | - Harry F Robertson
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
- St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, W21NY, UK
| | - Rory Purves
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
- Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHS Trust, Southport, PR86PN, UK
| | - Sarah E Biggs
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
| | - Ffion Dewi
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
| | - Lauren K Dixon
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
| | - Emily N Kirkham
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
| | - Conor S Jones
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
| | - Jozel Ramirez
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
| | - Darren L Scroggie
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK
- Bristol Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, BS28HW, UK
| | - Samir Pathak
- St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, LS97TF, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road BS8 2PS, Bristol, BS81QU, UK.
- St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, LS97TF, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ramirez J, Hoffmann C, Corrigan N, Kobetic M, Macefield R, Elliott D, Blazeby J, Potter S, Stocken DD, Avery K, Blencowe NS. Development of a core data set for describing, measuring and reporting the learning curve in studies of novel invasive procedures: study protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e084252. [PMID: 39059806 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/28/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures remains poorly regulated and standardised. Although the learning curve associated with invasive procedures is a critical part of innovation, it is currently inconsistently defined, measured and reported. This study aims to develop a core data set that can be applied in all studies describing or measuring the learning curve in novel invasive procedures. METHODS A core data set will be developed using methods adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The study will involve three phases: (1) Identification of a comprehensive list of data items through (a) an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews on the learning curve in surgery and (b) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. (2) Key stakeholders (eg, clinical innovators, clinicians, patients, methodologists, statisticians, journal editors and governance representatives) will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each data item, generating a shortened list. (3) Consensus meeting(s) with stakeholders to discuss and agree on the final core data set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study is approved by an Institutional Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (ref: 111362). Participants will complete written informed consent to participate. Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, patient engagement events, use of social media platforms, workshops and other events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jozel Ramirez
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Christin Hoffmann
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Neil Corrigan
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Matthew Kobetic
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Rhiannon Macefield
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Daisy Elliott
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane Blazeby
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Shelley Potter
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Deborah D Stocken
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Kerry Avery
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vallance AE. A systematic methodology review of fluorescence-guided cancer surgery to inform the development of a core master protocol and outcome set. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:697. [PMID: 38844894 PMCID: PMC11157717 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12386-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 06/09/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abigail E Vallance
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Seow-En I, Li KK, Tan EKW. Intracorporeal antimesenteric ancillary trocar: an anastomotic technique facilitating natural orifice specimen extraction in left-sided colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2024; 26:766-771. [PMID: 38302860 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16884] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/06/2024] [Indexed: 02/03/2024]
Abstract
AIM Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in left-sided colorectal surgery requires application of the circular stapler anvil to the proximal bowel without exteriorization through an additional abdominal incision. We describe an intracorporeal method to secure the stapler anvil, termed the intracorporeal antimesenteric ancillary trocar (IAAT) technique. METHOD The ancillary trocar is attached to the stapler anvil before introduction into the abdominal cavity through the anal or vaginal orifice. The colon is incised before the trocar spike is brought out through the antimesenteric surface 3-4 cm within the cut edge. A linear stapler is used to seal the bowel end. The ancillary trocar is detached and retrieved via the NOSE conduit. Following the NOSE procedure, a side-to-end colorectal anastomosis is performed with the transanal circular stapler. RESULTS Ten consecutive patients underwent elective left-sided colorectal resection with IAAT for NOSE (seven transanal, three transvaginal) from January to June 2023. Median age and body mass index were 66 (range 47-74) years and 24.3 (range 17.9-30.8) kg/m2 respectively. Two (20%) patients underwent sigmoid colectomy for sigmoid volvulus while eight (80%) underwent anterior resection for colorectal cancer. Median operating time, operative blood loss and postoperative length of hospital stay were 170 (range 140-240) min, 20 (range 10-40) mL and 1 (range 1-3) day respectively. There were no postoperative complications, readmissions or reoperations. Median follow-up duration was 3 (range 1-6) months. CONCLUSION The IAAT double-stapling side-to-end anastomotic technique is safe and feasible for patients undergoing left-sided colorectal resection with NOSE, resulting in good outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isaac Seow-En
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kelvin Kaiwen Li
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Emile Kwong-Wei Tan
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abegao Pinto L, Sunaric Mégevand G, Stalmans I. European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2023; 107:1-114. [PMID: 38128960 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2023-egsguidelines] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
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
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Gordana Sunaric Mégevand
- Eye Research Centre, Adolphe de Rothschild Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland and Centre Ophtalmologique de Florissant, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Ingeborg Stalmans
- Ingeborg Stalmans, University Hospitals UZ Leuven, Catholic University KU Leuven
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Vasey B, Lippert KA, Khan DZ, Ibrahim M, Koh CH, Layard Horsfall H, Lee KS, Williams S, Marcus HJ, McCulloch P. Intraoperative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Robotic Surgery: A Scoping Review of Current Development Stages and Levels of Autonomy. Ann Surg 2023; 278:896-903. [PMID: 36177855 PMCID: PMC10631501 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE A scoping review of the literature was conducted to identify intraoperative artificial intelligence (AI) applications for robotic surgery under development and categorize them by (1) purpose of the applications, (2) level of autonomy, (3) stage of development, and (4) type of measured outcome. BACKGROUND In robotic surgery, AI-based applications have the potential to disrupt a field so far based on a master-slave paradigm. However, there is no available overview about this technology's current stage of development and level of autonomy. METHODS MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched between January 1, 2010 and May 21, 2022. Abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. The level of autonomy was defined according to the Yang and colleagues' classification and stage of development according to the Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, and Long-term follow-up framework. RESULTS One hundred twenty-nine studies were included in the review. Ninety-seven studies (75%) described applications providing Robot Assistance (autonomy level 1), 30 studies (23%) application enabling Task Autonomy (autonomy level 2), and 2 studies (2%) application achieving Conditional autonomy (autonomy level 3). All studies were at Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, and Long-term follow-up stage 0 and no clinical investigations on humans were found. One hundred sixteen (90%) conducted in silico or ex vivo experiments on inorganic material, 9 (7%) ex vivo experiments on organic material, and 4 (3%) performed in vivo experiments in porcine models. CONCLUSIONS Clinical evaluation of intraoperative AI applications for robotic surgery is still in its infancy and most applications have a low level of autonomy. With increasing levels of autonomy, the evaluation focus seems to shift from AI-specific metrics to process outcomes, although common standards are needed to allow comparison between systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Baptiste Vasey
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Critical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Karoline A.N. Lippert
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Danyal Z. Khan
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mudathir Ibrahim
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of General Surgery, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY
| | - Chan Hee Koh
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hugo Layard Horsfall
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Keng Siang Lee
- Bristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Simon Williams
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hani J. Marcus
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Peter McCulloch
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Harji D, Fernandez B, Boissieras L, Celerier B, Rullier E, Denost Q. IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2023; 25:2346-2353. [PMID: 37919463 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2022] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
AIM There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA. METHOD A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days. RESULTS A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deena Harji
- Bordeaux Colorectal Institute, Clinique Tivoli, Bordeaux, France
| | - Benjamin Fernandez
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Lara Boissieras
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Bertrand Celerier
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Eric Rullier
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Quentin Denost
- Bordeaux Colorectal Institute, Clinique Tivoli, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Varghese C, Harvey X, Gharibans AA, Du P, Collinson R, Bissett IP, Stinear CM, O'Grady G, Paskaranandavadivel N. Clinical utility of trans-sacral magnetic stimulation-evoked sphincter potentials and high-density electromyography in pelvic floor assessment: Technical evaluation. Colorectal Dis 2023; 25:2257-2265. [PMID: 37800177 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2023] [Revised: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/07/2023]
Abstract
AIM Faecal incontinence is common and of multifactorial aetiologies, yet current diagnostic tools are unable to assess nerve and sphincter function objectively. We developed an anorectal high-density electromyography (HD-EMG) probe to evaluate motor-evoked potentials induced via trans-sacral magnetic stimulation (TSMS). METHOD Anorectal probes with an 8 × 8 array of electrodes spaced 1 cm apart were developed for recording HD-EMG of the external anal sphincter. These HD-EMG probes were used to map MEP amplitudes and latencies evoked via TSMS delivered through the Magstim Rapid2 (MagStim Company). Patients undergoing pelvic floor investigations were recruited for this IDEAL Stage 2a pilot study. RESULTS Eight participants (median age 49 years; five female) were recruited. Methodological viability, safety and diagnostic workflow were established. The test was well tolerated with median discomfort scores ≤2.5/10, median pain scores ≤1/10 and no adverse events. Higher Faecal Incontinence Severity Index scores correlated with longer MEP latencies (r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and lower MEP amplitudes (r = -0.32, p = 0.046), as did St. Mark's Incontinence Scores with both MEP latencies (r = 0.49, p = 0.001) and MEP amplitudes (r = -0.47, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION This HD-EMG probe in conjunction with TSMS presents a novel diagnostic tool for anorectal function assessment. Spatiotemporal assessment of magnetically stimulated MEPs correlated well with symptoms and offers a feasible, safe and patient-tolerable method of evaluating pudendal nerve and external anal sphincter function. Further clinical development and evaluation of these techniques is justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Varghese
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Xavier Harvey
- Department of Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Armen A Gharibans
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Peng Du
- Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rowan Collinson
- Department of Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Ian P Bissett
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Cathy M Stinear
- Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Greg O'Grady
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Azuara-Blanco A, Carlisle A, Jayaram H, Gazzard G, Larkin DFP, Wickham L, Lois N, Bicket A. Surgical innovation in ophthalmology: challenges and opportunities. Eye (Lond) 2023; 37:2165-2166. [PMID: 36477730 PMCID: PMC10366176 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02324-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2022] [Revised: 10/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Hari Jayaram
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre & Glaucoma Service at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gus Gazzard
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre & Glaucoma Service at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Daniel F P Larkin
- Cornea & External Diseases Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK
| | - Louisa Wickham
- Vitreo-retinal Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK
| | - Noemi Lois
- Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University, Belfast, UK
| | - Amanda Bicket
- Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hossaini S, Hoffmann C, Cousins S, Blencowe N, McNair AGK, Blazeby JM, Avery KNL, Potter S, Macefield R. Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review. BJS Open 2023; 7:7145934. [PMID: 37104755 PMCID: PMC10139440 DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Revised: 01/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Innovative surgical procedures and devices are often modified throughout their development and introduction into clinical practice. A systematic approach to reporting modifications may support shared learning and foster safe and transparent innovation. Definitions of 'modifications', and how they are conceptualized and classified so they can be reported and shared effectively, however, are lacking. This study aimed to explore and summarize existing definitions, perceptions, classifications and views on modification reporting to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications. METHODS A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Targeted searches and two database searches were performed to identify relevant opinion pieces and review articles. Included were articles relating to modifications to surgical procedures/devices. Data regarding definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications, and views on modification reporting were extracted verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which informed development of the conceptual framework. RESULTS Forty-nine articles were included. Eight articles included systems for classifying modifications, but no articles reported an explicit definition of modifications. Some 13 themes relating to perception of modifications were identified. The derived conceptual framework comprises three overarching components: baseline data about modifications, details about modifications and impact/consequences of modifications. CONCLUSION A conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications that occur during surgical innovation has been developed. This is a first necessary step to support consistent and transparent reporting of modifications, to facilitate shared learning and incremental innovation of surgical procedures/devices. Testing and operationalization is now needed to realize the value of this framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sina Hossaini
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Christin Hoffmann
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Angus G K McNair
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Division of Surgery, Bristol Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Kerry N L Avery
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Shelley Potter
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Rhiannon Macefield
- Department of Population Health Sciences, National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Milone M, Gallo G, Grossi U, Pelizzo P, D'Amore A, Manigrasso M, Perinotti R, La Torre M, De Palma GD, Basso L. Endoscopic sinusectomy: 'a rose by any other name'. A systematic review of different endoscopic procedures to treat pilonidal disease. Colorectal Dis 2023; 25:177-190. [PMID: 36217688 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Revised: 09/27/2022] [Accepted: 09/29/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM Pilonidal sinus or Pilonidal Disease (PD) is a relatively common, benign but challenging condition. Although commonly encountered in practice, its ideal treatment is controversial. One of the most validated treatments is video-assisted surgery. In this context, very similar endoscopic techniques have been published under different names. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the differences among these proposed techniques and their outcomes. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed during all stages of this systematic review. A systematic search of the English literature was performed on multiple databases from 1 January 2014 to 3 April 2022. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measures were the adherence to the IDEAL reporting guidelines, the Blencowe framework and the core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques, the qualitative assessment using appropriate tools, the procedural variations and outcomes of each technique. RESULTS A total of 38 articles were included reporting a very similar technique under eight different acronyms. The number of patients varied from 9 to 250. Mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 60 months. There was only one published study of IDEAL 3. The majority (58%) were IDEAL 2a studies. Reporting of domains in the IDEAL reporting guidelines and Blencowe framework was poor, with most studies not reporting the component steps of procedures or efforts to standardize them. Half of COS domains were markedly underreported. The quality of the evidence was categorized as having a risk of bias from moderate to critical level in all nine comparative non-randomized series. Postoperative complications occurred in 0%-6% of cases, including surgical site infection, poor or failed wound healing bleeding, granuloma, haematoma, and pain requiring intervention. The recurrence rate varied from 0% to 22%. CONCLUSION The study demonstrates that reporting on technical aspects of interventions for PD is poor, thus warranting a better-quality control of surgical techniques. It is advisable to group all endoscopic procedures under the umbrella term of 'endoscopic sinusectomy', thus embracing the two main principles of this technique, that is, video assistance and PD ablation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Milone
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Gaetano Gallo
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Ugo Grossi
- Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-DISCOG, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Patrizia Pelizzo
- Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-DISCOG, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Anna D'Amore
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Michele Manigrasso
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto Perinotti
- Colorectal Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy
| | - Marco La Torre
- Coloproctology Unit, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Luigi Basso
- 'Pietro Valdoni' Department of Surgery, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mansour KP, Mohan HM, Jiang W, Waters PS, Larach JT, Apte SS, Kong JC, Heriot AG, Warrier SK. Robotic pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: a systematic review of videos and application of the IDEAL 2A framework. J Robot Surg 2023:10.1007/s11701-023-01526-w. [PMID: 36689077 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01526-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in rectal cancer has gained increasing traction worldwide. Robotic LPLND is an emerging technique. Utilising the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment and long-term follow-up) framework for surgical innovation, robotic LPLND is currently at the IDEAL 2A stage (development) mainly limited to case reports, case series and videos. A systematic literature review was performed for videographic robotic LPLND. Pubmed, Ovid and Web of Science were searched with a predefined search strategy. The LapVEGAS score for peer review of video surgery was adapted for the robotic approach (RoVEGAS) and applied to measure video quality. Two reviewers independently reviewed videos and consensus reached on technical steps and learning points. Data are presented as a narrative synthesis of results. The IDEAL 2A framework was applied to videos to assess their content at the present stage of innovation. A total of 83 abstracts were identified. In accordance with the PRISMA statement, nine videos were analysed. Adherence to the complete IDEAL 2a framework was low. All videos demonstrated LPLND; however, reporting of clinical outcomes was heterogeneous and completed in six of nine videos. Histopathology was reported in six videos, with other outcomes variably reported. No videos presented patient-reported outcome measures. Two videos reported presence or absence of recurrence on follow-up. Video articles provide a valuable educational resource in dissemination and adoption of robotic techniques. Standardisation of reporting objectives are needed. Complete reporting of pathology and oncologic outcomes is required in videographic procedural-based publications to meet the IDEAL 2A framework criteria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Helen M Mohan
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | - William Jiang
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | - Peader S Waters
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.,Department of Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland
| | - José T Larach
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.,Department of Digestive Surgery, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Sameer S Apte
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | - Joseph C Kong
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Wickramasekera N, Strong E, Shackley P, Callaghan T, Lee M, Hind D, Brown S. Patient preferences for pilonidal sinus treatments: a discrete choice experiment survey. Colorectal Dis 2023; 25:984-994. [PMID: 36636796 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2022] [Revised: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 12/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A range of treatments are available for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD), each of which has a different risk/benefit profile. The aim of this study was to collect patient views on which interventions they would rather avoid and which outcomes they most value for PSD. METHOD We conducted an online survey using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) method. DCE task involved participants choosing the best treatment option when presented with a set of competing hypothetical treatment profiles. Participants with symptomatic PSD, referred for elective surgery were recruited from 33 NHS trusts between 2020 and 2022. Collected DCE data were analysed using regression analyses. RESULTS One hundred and eleven participants completed the survey. In the overall group, low risk of infection/persistence was the most important characteristic when making a treatment decision (attribute importance score of 70%), followed by treatments with shorter recovery time with an attribute importance score of 30%. The results demonstrated that patients are willing to accept trade-offs between treatment recovery time and risk of infection/persistence. Patients above 30 years old are willing to accept a higher chance of treatment failure in exchange for rapid treatment recovery (risk tolerance between 22.35 - 34.67 percentage points). Conversely, patients in the younger age groups, were risk averse, and were only willing to accept a small risk 1.51-2.15 in exchange for a treatment with faster recovery time. All patient groups appear to the reject the excision and leave open technique due to the need for protracted nursing care. CONCLUSION This study highlights the need for shared decision making when it comes to surgery for PSD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Emily Strong
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Tia Callaghan
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Matthew Lee
- Department of General Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
| | - Daniel Hind
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Steven Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Department of General Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Huttman MM, Robertson HF, Smith AN, Biggs SE, Dewi F, Dixon LK, Kirkham EN, Jones CS, Ramirez J, Scroggie DL, Zucker BE, Pathak S, Blencowe NS. A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards. J Robot Surg 2022; 17:313-324. [PMID: 36074220 PMCID: PMC10076351 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01453-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 08/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc M Huttman
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Harry F Robertson
- St. Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Sarah E Biggs
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Ffion Dewi
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Lauren K Dixon
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Emily N Kirkham
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,Musgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| | - Conor S Jones
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,Torbay Hospital, Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, Torquay, UK
| | - Jozel Ramirez
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Darren L Scroggie
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Benjamin E Zucker
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Samir Pathak
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.,St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hoffmann C, Kobetic M, Alford N, Blencowe N, Ramirez J, Macefield R, Blazeby JM, Avery KNL, Potter S. Shared Learning Utilizing Digital Methods in Surgery to Enhance Transparency in Surgical Innovation: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc 2022; 11:e37544. [PMID: 36074555 PMCID: PMC9501681 DOI: 10.2196/37544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical innovation can lead to important improvements in patient outcomes. Currently, information and knowledge about novel procedures and devices are disseminated informally and in an unstandardized way (eg, through social media). This can lead to ineffective and inefficient knowledge sharing among surgeons, which can result in the harmful repetition of mistakes and delay in the uptake of promising innovation. Improvements are needed in the way that learning in surgical innovation is shared through the development of novel, real-time methods, informed by a contemporary and comprehensive investigation of existing methods. OBJECTIVE The aim of this scoping review is to explore the application of existing digital methods for training/education and feedback to surgeons in the context of performing invasive surgical procedures. This work will (1) summarize existing methods for shared learning in surgery and how they are characterized and operationalized, (2) examine the impact of their application, and (3) explore their benefits and barriers to implementation. The findings of this scoping review will inform the development of novel, real-time methods to optimize shared learning in surgical innovation. METHODS This study will adhere to the recommended guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. A total of 6 different searches will be conducted within multiple sources (2 electronic databases, journals, social media, gray literature, commercial websites, and snowball searches) to comprehensively identify relevant articles and data. Searches will be limited to articles published in the English language within the last 5 years. Wherever possible, a 2-stage study selection process will be followed whereby the eligibility of articles will be assessed through the title, abstract, and full-text screening independently by 2 reviewers. Inclusion criteria will be articles providing data on (1) fully qualified theater staff involved in performing invasive procedures, (2) one or more methods for shared learning (ie, digital means for training/education and feedback), and (3) qualitative or quantitative evaluations of this method. Data will be extracted (10% double data extraction by an independent reviewer) into a piloted proforma and analyzed using descriptive statistics, narrative summaries, and principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS The study commenced in October 2021 and is planned to be completed in 2023. To date, systematic searches were applied to 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science) and returned a total of 10,093 records. The results of this scoping review will be published as open access in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review of methods for shared learning in surgery is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive and up-to-date investigation that maps current information on this topic. Ultimately, efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge of novel procedures and devices has the potential to optimize the evaluation of early-phase surgical research and reduce harmful innovation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/37544.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christin Hoffmann
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Kobetic
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Natasha Alford
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Division of Surgery, Bristol Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Jozel Ramirez
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Rhiannon Macefield
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Division of Surgery, Bristol Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Kerry N L Avery
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Shelley Potter
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol National Health Service Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hoffmann C, Hossaini S, Cousins S, Blencowe N, McNair AGK, Blazeby JM, Avery KNL, Potter S, Macefield R. Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol. Int J Surg Protoc 2021; 25:250-256. [PMID: 34825118 PMCID: PMC8588892 DOI: 10.29337/ijsp.167] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices. HIGHLIGHTS This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christin Hoffmann
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sina Hossaini
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Angus G. K. McNair
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane M. Blazeby
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Kerry N. L. Avery
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Shelley Potter
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Rhiannon Macefield
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|