Innovation in surgical technology and techniques: Challenges and ethical issues

Seminars in Pediatric Surgery

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 115-121

  Geiger, James D ^a   Hirschl, Ronald B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Credentialing; ECMO; Ethics; Innovation; Robotic surgery; Surgical training

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; DEVICE APPROVAL; DEVICE SAFETY; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT RISK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL RISK; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY; SURGICAL TRAINING; DEVICES; EDUCATION; ETHICS; GENERAL SURGERY; INVENTION; PROCEDURES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STANDARDS;

EQUIPMENT SAFETY; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; INVENTIONS; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84929667243     PISSN: 10558586     EISSN: 15329453     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Chalphin A.V., Yeo C.J., Cowan S.W., Milan S. Robert Edward Gross (1905-1988): ligation of a patent ductus arteriosus and the birth of a specialty. Am Surg 2014, 80:1087-1088.
2. Reynolds W. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surgeons 2001, 5:89-94.
3. Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med 1997, 337:1436-1440.
4. Curran W.J. The Tuskegee syphilis study. N Engl J Med 1973, 289:730-731.
5. Morgenstern L. Innovative surgery's dilemma. Surg Innov 2006, 13:73-74.
6. Barkun J.S., Aronson J.K., Feldman L.S., et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009, 374:1089-1096.
7. Hirschl R.B. Regulatory aspects of ECLS. ECMO: Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Support in Critical Care 2005, Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, Ann Arbor, MI. 3rd ed. K.L.K. Van Muers, G. Peek, J.B. Zwischenberger (Eds.).
8. Reitsma A.M., Moreno J.D. Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier?. J Am Coll Surg 2002, 194:792-801.
9. Moore F.D. Ethical problems special to surgery: surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in managed care. Arch Surg 2000, 135:14-16.
10. Sussman M.D. Ethical requirements that must be met before the introduction of new procedures. Clin Ortho Relat Res 2000, 15-22.
11. Riskin D.J., Longaker M.T., Krummel T.M. The ethics of innovation in pediatric surgery. Semin Pediatr Surg 2006, 15:319-323.
12. Strasberg S.M., Ludbrook P.A. Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques?. J Am Coll Surg 2003, 196:938-948.
13. Schwartz J.A. Innovation in pediatric surgery: the surgical innovation continuum and the ETHICAL model. J Pediatr Surg 2014, 49:639-645.
14. Lazar D.A., Cass D.L., Olutoye O.O., et al. Venovenous cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation using a bicaval dual-lumen catheter in neonates. J Pediatr Surg 2012, 47:430-434.
15. Zamora I.J., Shekerdemian L., Fallon S.C., et al. Outcomes comparing dual-lumen to multisite venovenous ECMO in the pediatric population: the extracorporeal life support registry experience. J Pediatr Surg 2014, 49:1452-1457.
16. Johnson S.M., Itoga N., Garnett G.M., Kilcommons M., Puapong D.P., Woo R.K. Increased risk of cardiovascular perforation during ECMO with a bicaval, wire-reinforced cannula. J Pediatr Surg 2014, 49:46-49. [discussion 49-50].
17. Morreim H., Mack M.J., Sade R.M. Surgical innovation: too risky to remain unregulated?. Ann Thorac Surg 2006, 82:1957-1965.
18. Kaye D.R., Mullins J.K., Carter H.B., Bivalacqua T.J. Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?. Nat Rev Urol 2015, 12:55-60.
19. Gandaglia G., Trinh Q.D. Models of assessment of comparative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery: best evidence regarding the superiority or inferiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2014, 41:597-606.
20. Anderson J.E., Chang D.C., Parsons J.K., Talamini M.A. The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 2012, 215:107-114. [discussion 114-106].
21. Chen C.C., Falcone T. Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009, 52:335-343.
22. Lavery H.J., Small A.C., Samadi D.B., Palese M.A. Transition from laparoscopic to robotic partial nephrectomy: the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2011, 15:291-297.
23. Kaul S., Shah N.L., Menon M. Learning curve using robotic surgery. Curr Urol Rep 2006, 7:125-129.
24. Herrell S.D., Smith J.A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve?. Urology 2005, 66:105-107.
25. Kaushik D., High R., Clark C.J., LaGrange C.A. Malfunction of the Da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey. J Endourol 2010, 24:571-575.
26. Cooper M.A., Ibrahim A., Lyu H., Makary M.A. Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual 2013, 10.1111/jhq.12036 [Epub ahead of print].
27. Roehr B. FDA proposes tightening post-market oversight of medical devices. Br Med J 2012, 345:e6140.
28. Stefanidis D., Fanelli R.D., Price R., Richardson W. SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc 2014, 28:2257-2271.
29. Birkmeyer J.D., Finks J.F., O'Reilly A., et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2013, 369:1434-1442.
30. Sood A., Jeong W., Ahlawat R., et al. Robotic surgical skill acquisition: what one needs to know?. J Minim Access Surg 2015, 11:10-15.
31. Fisher R.A., Dasgupta P., Mottrie A., et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg 2015, 13C:115-123.
32. Smith R., Patel V., Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot 2014, 10:379-384.
33. Weaver J.P. The problem with the operative permit. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984, 159:579-580.
34. Wright J.D., Ananth C.V., Lewin S.N., et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. J Assoc Med Assoc 2013, 309:689-698.
35. Williams S.B., Prado K., Hu J.C. Economics of robotic surgery: does it make sense and for whom?. Urol Clin North Am 2014, 41:591-596.