Developing a new model for the invention and translation of neurotechnologies in academic neurosurgery

Targeting the Future: Developing a Training Curriculum for Robotic Assisted Neurosurgery

OBJECTIVE

Technological advances have significantly fostered the use of robotics in neurosurgery. Due to their novelty, there is a need to develop training methods within neurosurgical residency programs that provide trainees the skills to utilize these systems in their future practices safely and effectively.

METHODS

We describe a detailed curriculum for trainees with significant responsibilities in the operating room, as well as hands-on and theoretical didactics. The curriculum for robot-assisted stereotactic electroencephalography (SEEG) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrode implantation technique and assessment tool has been designed based on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME's) milestone requirement for surgical treatment of epilepsy and movement disorders. Residents were surveyed to assess their use of robotics in their surgical training.

RESULTS

Since 2019, more than 100 patients have undergone robot-assisted SEEG and DBS depth electrode implantations at our institution. Residents and fellows were involved in all aspects of surgical planning and execution and were encouraged to take an active role during procedures. Didactic sessions led by experienced faculty are emphasized as important learning tools prior to hands-on experience in the operating room. The results of the survey show that residents receive more training intraoperatively as compared to training sessions, yet trainees would benefit from more instruction on informative cadaveric simulation sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our curriculum was developed to become a structured tool for assessment of robotic education in neurosurgical training. This curriculum based on ACGME milestone requirements serve as a template for resident and fellow education in robotics in neurosurgery.

Translational research in health technologies: A scoping review

Introduction

The current debate on the process of technological innovation points out as a challenge for universities consolidation of competencies that allow the generation and transfer of knowledge to society. The Translational Research (TR) approach has as one of its main objectives the acceleration of the innovation process, based on the transposition from basic science to applied science and innovation, which comprises the different stages of research, development and innovation. The literature points out that the dynamics of translation, which results in new technologies, are complex, transdisciplinary, inter-institutional, systemic, and non-linear. The main objective of this review is to contribute to the adoption of institutional strategies and the formulation of public policies aimed at solving today’s social and economic challenges, ensuring access to technologies and sustainability for the health system. The specific objectives were: (i) to systematize studies that characterized translational research in medical devices; (ii) map the challenges for the implementation of translational health research; (iii) contribute to the design of institutional strategies; and (iv) support the formulation of public policies.

Methods

This study used the scoping review technique, according to PRISMA-ScR and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Concerning the extraction of relevant articles, the journals indexed in Bireme, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were consulted for selecting relevant articles. The search was carried out on November 28, 2021, updated on April 29, 2022, and there were no restrictions as to the year of publication, language or type of analysis. Studies that did not answer the research question were excluded, as they dealt exclusively with the pharmaceutical segment, the translation of knowledge into clinical practice, or addressed the process of translational research applied to specific diseases or technologies.

Results

Thirty-three articles were included indicating that the approach of translation of research is multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary and encompasses knowledge and aspects that go beyond basic and applied research and incorporates final steps concerning regulatory aspects, clinical research, market analysis, technology transfer, production and incorporation of technologies into the health system.

Innovation within a university setting

Elisabeth K. Wynne, MD, completed her undergraduate degree in bioengineering and is currently a surgical resident in training at the University of Washington. From 2014-2016, she served as a Biodesign Fellow at Stanford University. She plans to pursue a career of innovation as an academic surgeon. Thomas M. Krummel, MD, is the Emile Holman Professor and Chair Emeritus of the Department of Surgery at Stanford University School of Medicine. Throughout his career, Dr Krummel has been a pioneer and an innovator. For >12 years, he has partnered with Dr Paul Yock to co-direct the Stanford Biodesign program, which is designed to teach innovation at the emerging frontiers of engineering and biomedical sciences. Dr Krummel is Chairman of the Fogarty Institute for Innovation Board of Directors, and President of the International Scientific Committee at Institut de Recherche contre les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif - IRCAD at the University of Strasbourg and is a frequent consultant to the medical device industry.

Empirical assessment of the time course of innovation in biomedical engineering: first results of a comparative approach

The pathway from the flash of a technological invention until its use as a medical device in every day care is tedious and burdensome. But the often postulated acceleration has to balance the speed of innovation and the indispensable product safety by an improved understanding of the innovation cycle. While several studies investigated the time course of pharmaceutical innovation, a comparable empirical analysis of medical devices is lacking. Thus we evaluated the time between the patent priority date and the corresponding receipt of the CE mark as a function of a medical device risk class in 61 cases. The statistical analysis yielded a time increment (trend) from medical devices in risk category I (median = 5.8 years) compared to risk category III (median = 10.4 years), which is close to literature reported values for drug development (9–12 years). The difference between products in risk classes I and II did not reach significance. To investigate the underlying facts, a text-mining approach especially to resolve the ambiguity of, e.g. patents, CE Marks etc. is suggested for increasing the sample size.

Bottlenecks to clinical translation of direct brain-computer interfaces

Despite several decades of research into novel brain-implantable devices to treat a range of diseases, only two—cochlear implants for sensorineural hearing loss and deep brain stimulation for movement disorders—have yielded any appreciable clinical benefit. Obstacles to translation include technical factors (e.g., signal loss due to gliosis or micromotion), lack of awareness of current clinical options for patients that the new therapy must outperform, traversing between federal and corporate funding needed to support clinical trials, and insufficient management expertise. This commentary reviews these obstacles preventing the translation of promising new neurotechnologies into clinical application and suggests some principles that interdisciplinary teams in academia and industry could adopt to enhance their chances of success.