Skip to main content

Evolving Responsibility for SAGES: New Technology Guideline

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The SAGES Manual Ethics of Surgical Innovation
  • 459 Accesses

Abstract

The SAGES Guideline Committee conducted an exhaustive literature review, a Delphi process, and focused interviews with thought leaders and Governing Board members to identify topics to be addressed by a new guideline about the ethical introduction of new technologies and techniques. Their primary goals were to fill knowledge gaps in existing literature and provide a framework useful to surgeons, patients, and health care constituents with regard to managing continual advances in technology. The guideline offers seven evidence-based recommendations, presented with quality ratings of supporting literature and recommendation strengths according to GRADE. Each advises readers on the various considerations important to the introduction, deployment, assessment, monitoring, and value of technological advances applied to clinical practice. SAGES advises all surgeons to consider carefully new technologies and techniques and to adopt a patient-first approach that ensures that self-determination and patient autonomy are preserved through transparency, management of conflicts of interest, and disclosure. Furthermore, it is advised that outcomes data be collected, and that value-based decisions be utilized whenever possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD, Price R, Richardson W, Committee SG. SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(8):2257–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schweigert FJ. The priority of justice: a framework approach to ethics in program evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2007;30(4):394–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gillon R. Autonomy and the principle of respect for autonomy. Br Med J. 1985;290(6484):1806–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barone JE, Lincer RM. Correction: a prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(21):1517–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stefanidis D, Montero P, Urbach DR, Qureshi A, Perry K, Bachman SL, et al. SAGES research agenda in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery: updated results of a Delphi study. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(10):2763–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Morrow DR. When technologies makes good people do bad things: another argument against the value-neutrality of technologies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014;20(2):329–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Haute A. Managing perceived conflicts of interest while ensuring the continued innovation of medical technology. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54(3 Suppl):31S–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frequently asked questions regarding the revised Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) Code of Ethics on Interactions with Health Care Professionals. Optometry. 2009;80(5):262–6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Orfanos CE. From Hippocrates to modern medicine. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereo. 2007;21(6):852–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sachdeva AK. Acquiring skills in new procedures and technology: the challenge and the opportunity. Arch Surg. 2005;140(4):387–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Holsinger Jr JW, Beaton B. Physician professionalism for a new century. Clin Anat. 2006;19(5):473–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert D. Fanelli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fanelli, R.D. (2016). Evolving Responsibility for SAGES: New Technology Guideline. In: Stain, S., Pryor, A., Shadduck, P. (eds) The SAGES Manual Ethics of Surgical Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27661-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27663-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics