Evaluation of an early-stage innovation for full-thickness excision of benign colonic polyps using the IDEAL framework

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.

Full-Thickness Laparoendoscopic Excision for Management of Complex Colon Polyps

BACKGROUND

Benign colon polyps are increasingly being detected because of improved colonoscopic screening and early detection of masses on the adenoma-to-carcinoma pathway. Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision is a colon-preserving technique for endoscopically unresectable polyps consisting of endoscopically guided nonanatomic wedge colectomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and success of full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision compared to segmental colectomy for complex polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective case-control study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

A prospectively maintained institutional database identified 22 patients with benign complex polyps managed with full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision from 2015 to 2020. These patients were compared with 22 propensity score-matched controls from the same database that underwent laparoscopic segmental colectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was inpatient length of stay. Secondary outcomes included operative details and postoperative morbidities.

RESULTS

Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision was successful in all patients. Patients had a median age of 64 years (41-85), and 82% were men. Final pathology revealed complete excision of benign lesions in 20 of 22 patients and adenocarcinoma in 2 of 22. For the adenocarcinomas, 1 patient underwent subsequent elective colectomy without complications, and 1 patient declined surgery. Propensity score matching was successful for age, sex, BMI, ASA score, colon location, and prior abdominal surgery. Compared with controls, cases had significantly shorter operative time (89.5 minutes (46-290) vs 122 minutes (85-200), p = 0.009), length of stay (1 day (0-17) vs 3 days (1-8), p < 0.001), and reduced blood loss (5 mL (2-15) vs 25 mL (10-150), p < 0.001). Thirty-day morbidity (9.1% vs 27.3%, p = 0.240) was not significantly different. An unplanned 30-day reoperation was performed in 1 patient for suspected small-bowel obstruction. There was 1 mortality due to decompensated cirrhosis in the treatment group.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its single-institution retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision is safe and successful compared with corresponding segmental colectomy for complex polyps. Favorable postoperative outcomes, including decreased operative time, length of stay, and blood loss, make it a useful approach for managing complex polyps throughout the colon.

Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery for difficult benign colorectal polyps

Prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) depends largely on the detection and removal of colorectal polyps. Despite the advances in endoscopic techniques, there are still a subgroup of polyps that cannot be treated purely by endoscopic approach, which comprise of about 10-15% of all the polyps. These so-called "difficult colorectal polyps" are polyps with large size, morphology, at difficult location, scarring or due to recurrence, which have historically been managed by surgical segmental resection. In treating benign difficult colorectal polyps, we have to balance the operative risks and morbidities associated with surgical segmental resection. Therefore, combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has been developed to remove this subgroup of difficult benign polyps. We review the currently use of CELS for difficult benign colorectal polyps which includes laparoscopy-assisted endoscopic polypectomy (LACP), full-thickness laparo-endoscopic excision (FLEX) and colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR).

Lack of Regulations and Conflict of Interest Transparency of New Hernia Surgery Technologies

BACKGROUND

Medical devices introduced to market through the 510K process often have limited research of low quality and substantial conflict of interest (COI). By the time high-quality safety and effectiveness research is performed, thousands of patients may have already been treated by the device. Our aim was to systematically review the trends of outcomes, research quality, and financial relationships of published studies related to de-adopted meshes for ventral hernia repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature was systematically reviewed using PubMed to obtain all published studies related to three de-adopted meshes: C-QUR, Physiomesh, and meshes with polytetrafluoroethylene. Primary outcome was change in cumulative percentage of subjects with positive published outcomes. Secondary outcome was percentage of published manuscript with COI.

RESULTS

A total of 723 articles were screened, of which, 129 were analyzed and included a total of 8081 subjects. Percentage of subjects with positive outcomes decreased over time for all groups: (1) C-QUR from 100% in 2009 to 22% in 2018, (2) Physiomesh from 100% in 2011 to 20% in 2018, and (3) polytetrafluoroethylene from 100% in 1979 to 49% in 2018. Authors of only 20% of articles self-reported no COI, most representing later publications and were more likely to show neutral or negative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among three de-adopted meshes, early publications demonstrated overly optimistic results followed by disappointing outcomes. Skepticism over newly introduced, poorly proven therapies is essential to prevent adoption of misleading practices and products. Devices currently approved under the 510K processes should undergo blinded, randomized controlled trials before introduction to the market.