nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.07.2010

EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery

verfasst von: Edmund A. M. Neugebauer, Monika Becker, Gerhard F. Buess, Alfred Cuschieri, Hans-Peter Dauben, Abe Fingerhut, Karl H. Fuchs, Brigitte Habermalz, Leonid Lantsberg, Mario Morino, Stella Reiter-Theil, Gabriela Soskuty, Wolfgang Wayand, Thilo Welsch, On behalf of the EAES

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 7/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Under the mandate of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) a guideline on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery has been developed. The primary focus of this guideline is patient safety, efficacy, and effectiveness.

Methods

An international expert panel was invited to develop recommendations for the assessment and introduction of surgical innovations. A consensus development conference (CDC) took place in May 2009 using the method of a nominal group process (NGP). The recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Prague, Czech Republic, on June 18th, 2009 for discussion and further input. After further Delphi processes between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon.

Results

The development and implementation of innovations in surgery are addressed in five sections: (1) definition of an innovation, (2) preclinical and (3) clinical scientific development, (4) scientific approval, and (5) implementation along with monitoring. Within the present guideline each of the sections and several steps are defined, and several recommendations based on available evidence have been agreed within each category. A comprehensive workflow of the different steps is given in an algorithm. In addition, issues of health technology assessment (HTA) serving to estimate efficiency followed by ethical directives are given.

Conclusions

Innovations into clinical practice should be introduced with the highest possible grade of safety for the patient (nil nocere: do no harm). The recommendations can contribute to the attainment of this objective without preventing future promising diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in the field of surgery and allied techniques.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2008) Learning healthcare system concepts v. 2008. Annual report. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/28312/RT-EBM/56903/57305.aspx, accessed 22 September 2009

Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA (2003) Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg 196:938–948CrossRefPubMed

Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Bergamaschi R, Bonjer HJ, Cuschieri A, Fuchs KH, Jacobi C, Jansen FW, Koivusalo AM, Lacy A, McMahon MJ, Millat B, Schwenk W (2002) The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery clinical practice guideline on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1121–1143CrossRefPubMed

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2008) Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/pdf/17c.pdf. October 2008; accessed 22 September 2009

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000). 4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp xxxvii, 2074. ISBN:9780618082308

Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM (2006) Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 244:686–693CrossRefPubMed

Margo CE (2001) When is surgery research? Towards an operational definition of human research. J Med Ethics 27:40–43CrossRefPubMed

Reeves B (1999) Health-technology assessment in surgery. Lancet 353(Suppl 1):SI3–SI5PubMed

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

10.

Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Altman DG, Ashby D, Black N, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell WB, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, Clavien PA, Cook JA, de Leval M, Deeks J, Ergina PL, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, McPherson K, Meakins J, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Rothwell P, Seiler CM, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374:1089–1096CrossRefPubMed

11.

Bernstein M, Bampoe J (2004) Surgical innovation or surgical evolution: an ethical and practical guide to handling novel neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg 100:2–7CrossRefPubMed

12.

Reitsma AM, Moreno JD (2002) Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg 194:792–801CrossRefPubMed

13.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2004) The interventional procedures programme—programme manual. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/developingniceinterventionalprocedures/interventionalproceduresprogrammemanual/the_interventional_procedures_programme_programme_manual.jsp, accessed 22 September 2009

14.

Reitsma AM, Moreno JD (2005) Ethics of innovative surgery: US surgeons’ definitions, knowledge, and attitudes. J Am Coll Surg 200:103–110CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cuschieri A (2006) Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 244:642–648CrossRefPubMed

16.

Paradis C (2008) Bias in surgical research. Ann Surg 248:180–188CrossRefPubMed

17.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2007) Interventional procedures programme—methods guide. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/developingniceinterventionalprocedures/interventionalproceduresprogrammemanual/interventional_procedures_programme_manual.jsp?domedia=1&mid=70C7F0D8-19B9-E0B5-D464C50580F580B1, October 2007; accessed 22 September 2009

18.

Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, Seiler CM (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD (2007) Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):MR000012

20.

Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312:1215–1218PubMed

21.

McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lewsey JD, Leyland AH, Murray GD, Boddy FA (2000) Using routine data to complement and enhance the results of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 4:1–55PubMed

23.

Gross M (1993) Innovations in surgery. A proposal for phased clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:351–354PubMed

24.

Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T (2004) Trials in surgery. Br J Surg 91:6–16CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, Cairns JA, Grant AM, McKee L (1997) When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess 1: i–vi, 1–149

26.

Chalmers TC (1977) Randomize the first patient. N Engl J Med 296:107PubMed

27.

Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R (1991) Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group. Br J Surg 78:150–154CrossRefPubMed

28.

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) (2008) General methods 3.0. Available at: http://www.iqwig.de/general-methods.428.en.html; accessed 22 September 2009

29.

McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gurusamy KS, Gluud C, Nikolova D, Davidson BR (2009) Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery. Br J Surg 96:342–349CrossRefPubMed

31.

Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S, Sackett DL, Cina CS, Walter SD, Haynes B, Schunemann HJ, Norman GR, Guyatt GH (2005) Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330:88CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT (2000) Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16:1095–1108CrossRefPubMed

33.

Talebpour M, Alijani A, Hanna GB, Moosa Z, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2009) Proficiency-gain curve for an advanced laparoscopic procedure defined by observation clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). Surg Endosc 23:869–875CrossRefPubMed

34.

Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery—a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29:409–414CrossRefPubMed

35.

Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139:1215–1220CrossRefPubMed

36.

Tang B, Hanna GB, Carter F, Adamson GD, Martindale JP, Cuschieri A (2006) Competence assessment of laparoscopic operative and cognitive skills: objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) or observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). World J Surg 30:527–534CrossRefPubMed

37.

Rahbari NN, Diener MK, Wente M-N, Seiler CM (2007) Development and perspectives of randomized controlled trials in surgery. Am J Surg 194:S148–S152CrossRef

38.

Altenstetter C (2003) EU and member state medical devices regulation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19:228–248CrossRefPubMed

39.

The Council of the European Communities (1993) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Official J L 169:0001–0043

40.

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2008) Identifizierung von Innovationshürden in der Medizintechnik, Berlin

41.

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2005) Studie zur Situation der Medizintechnik in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich, Berlin

42.

European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry (1994–2008) Guidelines relating to medical devices Directives. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/medical_devices/meddev/meddev_en.htm; accessed 22 September 2009.

43.

European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry (2007) Guidelines on a medical device vigilance system. MEDDEV 212-1 rev 5. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/medical_devices/meddev/2_12_1-rev_5-2007-fin3.pdf. April 2007; accessed 22 September 2009

44.

European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry (2004) Guidelines on post market clinical follow-up. MEDDEV 212-2. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/medical_devices/meddev/2_12-2_05-2004.pdf. May 2004; accessed 22 September 2009

45.

McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, Vale L, Grant A (2005) Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9:1–203, iii–iv

46.

Raftery J, Roderick P, Stevens A (2005) Potential use of routine databases in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 9:1–92, iii–iv

47.

McDaid D, Cookson R (2003) Evaluating health care interventions in the European Union. Health Policy 63:133–139CrossRefPubMed

48.

Schultz M, Lyle C (2009) Health economic analysis. Appl Clin Trial 18:40–48

49.

Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur RE (2004) Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 58:207–217CrossRefPubMed

50.

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York

51.

Tröhler U, Reiter-Theil S (1998) Ethics codes in medicine. Foundations and achievements since 1947. Ashgate, Aldershot

52.

Jonsen A, Veatch RM, Walters L (1998) Source book in bioethics. A documented history. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

53.

Kimura R (1998) The forgotten history of Japan. In: Tröhler U, Reiter-Theil S (eds) Ethics codes in medicine: foundations and achievements since 1947. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 119–126

54.

Rothmann DJ (1998) The Nuremberg Code in light of previous principles and practices in human experimentation. In: Tröhler U, Reiter-Theil S (eds) Ethics codes in medicine: foundations and achievements since 1947. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 50–59

55.

Winslade WJ, Krause TL (1998) The Nuremberg code turns fifty. In: Tröhler U, Reiter-Theil S (eds) Ethics codes in medicine foundations, achievements since 1947. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 140–162

56.

Faden R, Beauchamp TL (1986) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, Oxford

57.

Hurst SA, Foerde R, Reiter-Theil S, Slowther AM, Perrier A, Pegoraro R, Danis M (2007) Physicians’ views on resource availability and equity in four European health care systems. BMC Health Serv Res 7:137CrossRefPubMed

58.

Albisser Schleger H, Reiter-Theil S (2007) “Age” and “Costs”—factors in treatment decisions at the end of life? An analysis of informal knowledge structures of doctors and nurses. Ethik Med 19:103–119CrossRef

59.

Albisser Schleger H, Reiter-Theil S (2008) “Futility”—overtreatment at the end of life? Reasons for missed cessations of therapy in geriatric and critical care medicine. Z Palliativmed 9:67–75CrossRef

60.

Hurst SA, Reiter-Theil S, Slowther AM, Pegoraro R, Forde R, Danis M (2008) Should ethics consultants help clinicians face scarcity in their practice? J Med Ethics 34:241–246CrossRefPubMed

61.

Shirkey H (1999) Therapeutic orphans. Pediatrics 104:583–584PubMed

62.

Bartels S, Parker M, Hope T, Reiter-Theil S (2005) Are “Ethics Guidelines” helpful in taking critical treatment decisions? A comparative casuistic analysis of German, British and Swiss Guidelines regarding Palliative Care. Ethik Med 17:191–205CrossRef

63.

Hurst SA, Perrier A, Pegoraro R, Reiter-Theil S, Forde R, Slowther AM, Garrett-Mayer E, Danis M (2007) Ethical difficulties in clinical practice: experiences of European doctors. J Med Ethics 33:51–57CrossRefPubMed

64.

American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) (1998) Core competences for health care ethics consultation. Glenview, IL, USA. doi:wiley.com/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00353.x

65.

Reiter-Theil S (2001) Ethics consultation in Germany. The present situation. Health Ethics Comm Forum 13:265–280

66.

Reiter-Theil S (2003) Balancing the perspectives. The patient’s role in clinical ethics consultation. Med Health Care Philos 6:247–254CrossRefPubMed

67.

Agich GJ (2001) Ethics and innovation in medicine. J Med Ethics 27:295–296CrossRefPubMed

68.

Agich GJ (2008) The ethical challenge posed by surgical innovation. Lahey Clin Med Ethics Spring 15:1–2

69.

Brower V (2003) The ethics of innovation. Should innovative surgery be exempt from clinical trials and regulations? EMBO Rep 4:338–340CrossRefPubMed

70.

Fins JJ (2008) Surgical innovation and ethical dilemmas: precautions and proximity. Cleve Clin J Med 75(Suppl 6):S7–S12CrossRefPubMed

71.

Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, Jennings B, Levine RJ, Davidoff F, Casarett D, Corrigan J, Fox E, Wynia MK, Agich GJ, O’Kane M, Speroff T, Schyve P, Batalden P, Tunis S, Berlinger N, Cronenwett L, Fitzmaurice JM, Dubler NN, James B (2007) The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med 146:666–673PubMed

72.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2009) Glossary. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/website/glossary/; accessed 30 September 2009

73.

International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) INAHTA health technology assessment (HTA) Glossary. Available at: http://www.inahta.org/GO-DIRECT-TO/Members/; Accessed 30 September 2009

74.

Community Eye Health Journal (2007) Glossary: research and training. Available at: http://www.cehjournal.org/0953-6833/20/jceh_20_61_017.html. March 2007; Accessed 30 September 2009

75.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) Glossary of statistical terms. Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/; accessed 30 September 2009

Titel: EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery
verfasst von: Edmund A. M. Neugebauer
Monika Becker
Gerhard F. Buess
Alfred Cuschieri
Hans-Peter Dauben
Abe Fingerhut
Karl H. Fuchs
Brigitte Habermalz
Leonid Lantsberg
Mario Morino
Stella Reiter-Theil
Gabriela Soskuty
Wolfgang Wayand
Thilo Welsch
On behalf of the EAES
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2010
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 7/2010
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0818-3

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

21.05.2024 TAVI Nachrichten

Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery