A Systematic Review to Summarise and Appraise the Reporting of Surgical Innovation: a Case Study in Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is an innovative alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches. Literature has been published investigating its safety/efficacy; however, the quality of reporting is uncertain. This systematic review used the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework to assess the reporting quality of available literature. A narrative summary was formulated, assessing how comprehensively governance/ethics, patient selection, demographics, surgeon expertise/training, technique description and outcomes were reported. Forty-seven studies published between 2005 and 2024 were included. There was incomplete/inconsistent reporting of governance/ethics, patient selection, surgeon expertise/training and technique description, with heterogenous outcome reporting. RRYGB reporting was poor and did not align with IDEAL guidance. Robust prospective studies reporting findings using IDEAL/other guidance are required to facilitate safe widespread adoption of RRYGB and other surgical innovations.

A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards.

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.

A systematic review of robot-assisted cholecystectomy to examine the quality of reporting in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines. METHODS: Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting. RESULTS: Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less. CONCLUSION: The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation.

Shared Learning Utilizing Digital Methods in Surgery to Enhance Transparency in Surgical Innovation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical innovation can lead to important improvements in patient outcomes. Currently, information and knowledge about novel procedures and devices are disseminated informally and in an unstandardized way (eg, through social media). This can lead to ineffective and inefficient knowledge sharing among surgeons, which can result in the harmful repetition of mistakes and delay in the uptake of promising innovation. Improvements are needed in the way that learning in surgical innovation is shared through the development of novel, real-time methods, informed by a contemporary and comprehensive investigation of existing methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to explore the application of existing digital methods for training/education and feedback to surgeons in the context of performing invasive surgical procedures. This work will (1) summarize existing methods for shared learning in surgery and how they are characterized and operationalized, (2) examine the impact of their application, and (3) explore their benefits and barriers to implementation. The findings of this scoping review will inform the development of novel, real-time methods to optimize shared learning in surgical innovation. METHODS: This study will adhere to the recommended guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. A total of 6 different searches will be conducted within multiple sources (2 electronic databases, journals, social media, gray literature, commercial websites, and snowball searches) to comprehensively identify relevant articles and data. Searches will be limited to articles published in the English language within the last 5 years. Wherever possible, a 2-stage study selection process will be followed whereby the eligibility of articles will be assessed through the title, abstract, and full-text screening independently by 2 reviewers. Inclusion criteria will be articles providing data on (1) fully qualified theater staff involved in performing invasive procedures, (2) one or more methods for shared learning (ie, digital means for training/education and feedback), and (3) qualitative or quantitative evaluations of this method. Data will be extracted (10% double data extraction by an independent reviewer) into a piloted proforma and analyzed using descriptive statistics, narrative summaries, and principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study commenced in October 2021 and is planned to be completed in 2023. To date, systematic searches were applied to 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science) and returned a total of 10,093 records. The results of this scoping review will be published as open access in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review of methods for shared learning in surgery is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive and up-to-date investigation that maps current information on this topic. Ultimately, efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge of novel procedures and devices has the potential to optimize the evaluation of early-phase surgical research and reduce harmful innovation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37544.

A systematic review of outcome reporting for interventions to treat people with diabetic foot ulceration.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a challenging clinical problem that affects up to a quarter of patients with diabetes in their lifetime. An agreed set of outcomes for assessing treatments or interventions for DFU has not previously been considered. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes that are reported in clinical studies assessing a treatment or intervention for DFU, to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS). METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed between January 2016 and March 2019. The search strategy was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128250). Two authors independently screened abstracts for full text review. Outcomes were extracted from selected papers verbatim and categorized into domains according to established taxonomy. Consistency of outcome reporting was assessed. Overlapping outcomes were merged independently to condense the extracted list of outcomes for use in forthcoming consensus processes. RESULTS: Of 4645 abstracts identified, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 69 randomized studies, 40 prospective studies and 5 protocols. Some 948 outcomes were extracted verbatim. Outcome reporting was consistent for 474 (53%) outcomes. De-duplication left 714 unique verbatim outcomes across 33 domains. Merging of overlapping unique verbatim outcomes established 95 merged outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study describes contemporary outcomes reported in studies assessing interventions for DFU. Outcome reporting is considered to be poor as it was consistent in just over half of outcomes extracted. Merging of outcomes has identified 95 outcomes that can be taken forward in the development of a COS.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Major Lower Limb Amputation Caused by Peripheral Artery Disease or Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Most major lower limb amputations are related to peripheral artery disease (PAD) or diabetes. Just 40% of patients who undergo major lower limb amputation will use a prosthesis yet measures of surgical success commonly focus on prosthesis use. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable to comprehensively evaluate health related quality of life (HRQL) after surgery. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe PROMs available to assess HRQL in patients after amputation for PAD or diabetes. METHODS: A search was conducted based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) for systematic reviews of PROMs. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were also searched from inception until August 2019. Included were articles describing the development, measurement properties, or evaluation of HRQL via a PROM in adult patients after amputation for PAD or diabetes. Studies of amputation exclusively for trauma or malignancy were excluded. Data were collected on study characteristics, PROM characteristics (generic/disease specific), and properties of amputation specific PROMs. RESULTS: Of 3 317 abstracts screened, 111 full text articles were assessed for eligibility and 64 included. Fifty-six studies evaluated HRQL, with 23 (46%) of these using an amputation specific PROM to do so. Eleven different amputation specific PROMs were identified, 10 (91%) of which were developed only for prosthesis users. One measure was suitable for use in all patients after amputation. This "Amputee single item mobility measure" includes a single item evaluating mobility. Nine studies reported some psychometric testing of an amputation specific PROM. CONCLUSION: A well tested, multidimensional PROM applicable to wheelchair and prosthetic users after amputation is lacking and urgently needed for studies in this field. Future work to develop an appropriate measure is required.