Challenges and potential solutions to the evaluation, monitoring, and regulation of surgical innovations

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND

Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH.

METHOD

Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923.

CONCLUSION

Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy: A Systematic Review

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.

Background

High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.

Results

Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.

Conclusion

According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.

Attitudes Toward Surgical Innovation Research in the Pediatric Surgery Fellowship Match

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric surgery applicants are increasingly pursuing research in non-traditional fields including surgical innovation. This study aims to evaluate the relative value that pediatric surgeons involved in fellow selection place on innovation experience compared to traditional research.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-based survey of American Pediatric Surgical Association members involved in the selection of pediatric surgical fellows was conducted. Respondents reported their own innovation experience and were asked to identify valuable traits of applicants who completed an innovation fellowship. They rated the value of traditional research metrics including publications, presentations, and advanced degrees compared to patents and other innovation-related metrics. Comparisons were made between those with and without innovation experience with respect to gender, years in practice, and institutional role.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty respondents were involved in pediatric surgery fellow selection. Innovation work was felt to be equal to or more valuable than basic science by 75% of respondents (84% vs. clinical/outcomes, 93% vs. other non-traditional, 72% vs. other clinical fellowships). Commonly cited concerns included "fewer publications" (21%) and "preoccupation with financial reward" (19%). The most valuable innovation-related metrics were "developing a novel surgical procedure" (67%) and "developing a novel device" (58%). When asked if the respondent would advise a junior resident to pursue an innovation fellowship, 49% would, 9% would not, and 43% were unsure. Seventeen percent expressed concern for match success.

CONCLUSION

Innovation experience is generally viewed positively by pediatric surgeons involved in fellow selection. However, applicants and mentors would benefit from focusing on traditional academic outputs to ensure competitiveness.

TYPE OF STUDY

Cross-sectional observational study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Aligning Incentives for Surgical Innovation: Review of the Literature and Best Practices

Background: Innovation in the clinical surgical space is often generated by the insight and ideas of practicing surgeons whose ideas solve direct and relevant clinical problems with both novel products and reimagined processes. Despite some successes in both product and process development, innovation in the practicing surgical space does not occur with the frequency one might expect and does not consistently result in adoption of profitable or health-improving new products or processes. One barrier to successful innovation is the misalignment of incentives for early-stage innovation in the clinical surgical enterprise. This project was undertaken to determine best innovation practices for clinical Divisions and Departments. Methods: Best practices for innovation in industry were determined by company-specific examples, as well as literature review in the business and medical literature. Concepts were then integrated to determine a viable model that aligns incentives to encourage early-stage innovation. Proposal: The centralized Moderated Innovation Database (MID) of early-stage exploratory ideas integrates best practices of innovation in a low-cost, sustainable model. The MID must be executed in 3 phases to ensure viability in implementation. This model is likely to encourage innovation by both improving stakeholder satisfaction with and engagement in the process, and by increasing capture of early-stage innovation. Conclusion: Infrastructure for early-stage ideas will help align incentives for early-stage innovation, and the MID is consistent with best practices for innovation.

Barriers to Surgical Innovation Research: A Canadian Study on Public Funding Trends

Background

A decline in research funding has been cited as a potential cause for limited surgical innovation in the United States. We aim to understand if this is a North American phenomenon and explore whether a lack of public funding is a barrier to surgical innovation in Canada.

Methods

Publicly available funding data from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) were reviewed from 2008 to 2019 to determine the yearly funding distributed to surgical departments. Surgical innovation studies were identified and total yearly funding was calculated. All amounts were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2019 Canadian dollar value.

Results

From 2008 to 2019, surgical departments were granted 1.82–4.70% of total CIHR funding. In total, 902 grants were allocated to surgical departments and 126 (14.0%) met criteria for surgical innovation. Surgical innovation research was allocated a total annual amount ranging from 1.52 to 9.01 million CAD. There appears to be an upward trend in public funding for surgical innovation over this time period.

Discussion

Contrary to the landscape in the United States, there is no evidence of decreasing trends in public funding for surgical innovation in Canada. Considerations should be given to other potential barriers precluding surgeons from participating in innovation.

Conclusion

Only a small percentage of research dollars to departments in Canada are spent on innovation research, despite an overall increasing trend in total public research funding over the past 10 years. We need to foster an environment in which surgical innovation is encouraged through medical curriculum changes, multidisciplinary collaboration opportunities, and dedicated faculty resources.

Surgical innovation in LMICs-The perspective from India

Surgical Innovations are central to surgical progress, and have led to exponential growth in various fields of Surgery. Surgical Innovations in Lower and Middle Income Countries are the result of creativity of frontline health workers in search of simple, safe and ethical solutions for their unique challenges. The key lies in: 'simplifying the idea/technique/device' to find patients' needs-driven low-cost innovative surgical solutions; which can be used on a wider scale to achieve health equity for underserved populations. Local surgeons understand the difficulties and nuances of various problems and can provide local-evidence-based customized solutions for their patients' health problems. We developed a Surgical Innovation Ecosystem allowing us to see difficulties as opportunities, learn from everyone and conduct research on what is 'important' rather than what is 'interesting'. Barriers to Surgical Innovations in Lower and Middle Income Countries are well known; however, a roadmap to overcome these barriers is now available. The right balance has to be found between encouraging creativity and innovation while maintaining ethical awareness and responsibility to patients. Introduction and adoption of Surgical Innovations are governed by evidence-based principles and have to undergo a rigorous and scientific evaluation. Science of Surgical Innovations has finally come of age and is getting its due recognition and the pioneering innovators are receiving the much needed appreciation and support.

Expertise-based design in surgical trials: a narrative review

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design for evaluating the safety and efficacy of a therapeutic intervention. However, their internal validity are at risk when evaluating surgical interventions. This review summarizes existing expertise- based trials in surgery and related methodological concepts to guide surgeons performing this work. We provide caseloads required to reach the learning curve for various surgical interventions and report criteria for expertise from published and unpublished expertise-based trials. In addition, we review design and implementation concepts of expertise-based trials, including recruitment of surgeons, crossover, ethics, generalizability, sample size and definitions for learning curve. Several RCTs have used an expertise-based design. We found that the majority of definitions used for expertise were vague, heterogeneous, and inconsistent across trials evaluating the same surgical intervention. Statistical methods exist to adjust for the learning curve; however, there is limited guidance. We developed the following criteria for surgical expertise for future trials: 1) decide on the proxy to be used for the learning curve, and 2) assess eligible surgeons by comparing their performance to the previously defined expertise criteria.

Variation in use of damage control laparotomy for trauma by trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia

Background

It is unknown how frequently damage control (DC) laparotomy is used across trauma centers in different countries. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to study variations in use of the procedure and predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy.

Methods

A self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia was conducted. The survey collected information about trauma center and program characteristics. It also asked how often the trauma program director estimated DC laparotomy was performed on injured patients at that center on average over the last year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of a higher reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy.

Results

Of the 366 potentially eligible trauma centers sent the survey, 199 (51.8%) trauma program directors or leaders responded [United States = 156 (78.4%), Canada = 26 (13.1%), and Australasia = 17 (8.5%)]. The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. DC laparotomy was used more frequently in level-1 than level-2 or -3 trauma centers. Further, high-volume level-1 centers used DC laparotomy significantly more often than lower volume level-1 centers (p = 0.02). Nearly half (48.4%) of high-volume volume level-1 trauma centers reported using the procedure at least once weekly. Significant adjusted predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy included country of origin [odds ratio (OR) for the United States vs. Canada = 7.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–40.27], level-1 verification status (OR = 6.02; 95% CI 2.01–18.06), and the assessment of a higher number of severely injured (Injury Severity Scale score > 15) patients (OR per-100 patients = 1.62; 95% CI 1.20–2.18) and patients with penetrating injuries (OR per-5% increase = 1.27; 95% CI 1.01–1.58) in the last year.

Conclusions

The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. Those centers that most need to evaluate the benefit-to-risk ratio of using DC laparotomy in different scenarios may include high-volume, level-1 trauma centers, particularly those that often manage penetrating injuries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00396-7.

[Innovations in surgery-How can new technologies be safely implemented in the clinical practice?]

Modern surgery is currently undergoing a significant change in the sense of the introduction of modern technologies and innovative techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery and modern techniques of visualization confront surgery with unprecedented challenges with respect to possible and meaningful areas of application for these innovations. If an innovation is not to remain only an interesting singularity as proof of feasibility and a sign of unchecked progress but is to have a fixed place within the framework of standardized treatment processes, firm regulations are required which flank the path from innovation to introduction into clinical practice. This overview article critically examines the deficits of the currently practiced models of introducing new technologies into the clinical practice and discusses new aspects that can improve the introduction of innovations with particular respect to patient safety.

Prenatal regenerative fetoscopic interventions for congenital anomalies

Fetal intervention has progressed in the past two decades from experimental proof-of-concept to practice-adopted, life saving interventions in human fetuses with congenital anomalies. This progress is informed by advances in innovative research, prenatal diagnosis, and fetal surgical techniques. Invasive open hysterotomy, associated with notable maternal-fetal risks, is steadily replaced by less invasive fetoscopic alternatives. A better understanding of the natural history and pathophysiology of congenital diseases has advanced the prenatal regenerative paradigm. By altering the natural course of disease through regrowth or redevelopment of malformed fetal organs, prenatal regenerative medicine has transformed maternal-fetal care. This review discusses the uses of regenerative medicine in the prenatal diagnosis and management of three congenital diseases: congenital diaphragmatic hernia, lower urinary tract obstruction, and spina bifida.

Special issues raised by evolving areas of clinical research

Each study presents its own set of ethical considerations. Certain kinds of ethical issues are inherent in particular areas of clinical research, regardless of specific ethical questions associated with a specific study. In this chapter, some of the most common special areas of clinical research are presented, highlighting the ethical issues most frequently associated with each.