Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations Barkun, Jeffrey S, Prof; Aronson, Jeffrey K, Prof; Feldman, Liane S, MD ...
The Lancet (British edition),
2009-Sep-26, Volume:
374, Issue:
9695
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Summary Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and ...adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
CONTEXT Many men with inguinal hernia have minimal symptoms. Whether deferring surgical repair is a safe and acceptable option has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE To compare pain and the physical ...component score (PCS) of the Short Form-36 Version 2 survey at 2 years in men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias treated with watchful waiting or surgical repair. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized trial conducted January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2004, at 5 North American centers and enrolling 720 men (364 watchful waiting, 356 surgical repair) followed up for 2 to 4.5 years. INTERVENTIONS Watchful-waiting patients were followed up at 6 months and annually and watched for hernia symptoms; repair patients received standard open tension-free repair and were followed up at 3 and 6 months and annually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Pain and discomfort interfering with usual activities at 2 years and change in PCS from baseline to 2 years. Secondary outcomes were complications, patient-reported pain, functional status, activity levels, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS Primary intention-to-treat outcomes were similar at 2 years for watchful waiting vs surgical repair: pain limiting activities (5.1% vs 2.2%, respectively; P = .52); PCS (improvement over baseline, 0.29 points vs 0.13 points; P = .79). Twenty-three percent of patients assigned to watchful waiting crossed over to receive surgical repair (increase in hernia-related pain was the most common reason offered); 17% assigned to receive repair crossed over to watchful waiting. Self-reported pain in watchful-waiting patients crossing over improved after repair. Occurrence of postoperative hernia-related complications was similar in patients who received repair as assigned and in watchful-waiting patients who crossed over. One watchful-waiting patient (0.3%) experienced acute hernia incarceration without strangulation within 2 years; a second had acute incarceration with bowel obstruction at 4 years, with a frequency of 1.8/1000 patient-years inclusive of patients followed up for as long as 4.5 years. CONCLUSIONS Watchful waiting is an acceptable option for men with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias. Delaying surgical repair until symptoms increase is safe because acute hernia incarcerations occur rarely. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov
Identifier: NCT00263250
OBJECTIVES:To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations.
BACKGROUND/METHODS:Most countries are increasingly ...forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aimsfirst, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents.
RESULTS:Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS:There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely “market driven” approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.
Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of ...surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures. PUBLICATION ABSTRACT
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
This study sought to synthesize survival outcomes from trials of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether expert acceptance of this technology in the literature has ...parallel cumulative survival evidence.
A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted. The primary outcome was survival, and meta-analysis of time-to-event data was conducted. Expert opinion in the literature (published reviews, guidelines, and textbook chapters) on the acceptability of laparoscopic colorectal cancer was graded using a 7-point scale. Pooled survival data were correlated in time with accumulating expert opinion scores.
A total of 5,800 citations were screened. Of these, 39 publications pertaining to 23 individual trials were retained. As well, 414 reviews were included (28 guidelines, 30 textbook chapters, 20 systematic reviews, 336 narrative reviews). In total, 5,782 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 3,031) and open (n = 2,751) colorectal surgery. Survival data were presented in 16 publications. Laparoscopic surgery was not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.80, 1.09). Expert opinion in the literature pertaining to the oncologic acceptability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer correlated most closely with the publication of large RCTs in 2002-2004. Although increasingly accepted since 2006, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial.
Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is non-inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival, and has been so since 2004. The majority expert opinion in the literature has considered these two techniques to be equivalent since 2002-2004. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been increasingly accepted since 2006, but remains controversial. Knowledge translation efforts in this field appear to have paralleled the accumulation of clinical trial evidence.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The goal of this study was to assist surgeons in managing patients with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia by identifying characteristics that predict crossover to surgery or worsening of hernia ...symptoms.
Randomized trials have suggested that watchful waiting management of minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia is an acceptable alternative to surgical repair. However, these trials found that roughly a quarter of patients would elect for repair in the first 2 years, suggesting that not all patients are good candidates for watchful waiting.
The 336 patients randomized to watchful waiting in the American College of Surgeons Watchful Waiting Hernia Trial constituted the study population. Preoperative patient characteristics were used to predict 2 outcomes, either crossover to surgery or the development of hernia pain limiting activities and/or crossover to surgery. Patients in our study were part of a previously registered randomized trial: NCT00263250.
At 2 years, 72 patients crossed over to surgery, with pain with strenuous activities odds ratio (OR), 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale pain scale, chronic constipation (OR, 4.9), prostatism (OR, 2.9), being married (OR, 2.3), and good health OR, 3.0 American Society of Anesthesiologists Class (ASA) 1 vs 2, predicting crossover. An additional 28 patients developed pain, limiting their activities, with pain during strenuous activities (OR, 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale) and chronic constipation (OR, 4.5), predicting the combined outcome of pain limiting activities and/or crossover to surgery. Higher levels of activity reduced the risk (OR, 0.95) of this combined outcome.
Readily identifiable patient characteristics can predict those patients with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia who are likely to "fail" watchful waiting hernia management. Consideration of these factors will allow surgeons to optimally tailor hernia management.
This forum summarizes the proceedings of the joint European Surgical Association (ESA)/American Surgical Association (ASA) symposium on Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery that took place in ...Bordeaux, France, as part of the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the ESA. Three presentations focused on a) the main messages from the Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference, which took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2022, b) the patient perspective, and c) benchmarking were hold by ESA members and discussed by ASA members in a symposium attended by members of both associations.
PDF
