Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 2257–2271 | Cite as

SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques

  • Dimitrios Stefanidis
  • Robert D. Fanelli
  • Ray Price
  • William Richardson
  • SAGES Guidelines Committee


  1. 1.
    Club TSS (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SAGES ASGE (2006) Working group on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery white paper October 2005. Gastrointest Endosc 63:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rattner DW, Hawes R, Schwaitzberg S, Kochman M, Swanstrom L (2011) The Second SAGES/ASGE White Paper on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: 5 years of progress. Surg Endosc 25:2441–2448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Surgeons ACo (1994) Statements on emerging surgical technologies and the evaluation of credentials. Bull Am Coll Surg 79:40–41Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM, Lee DI, Sundaram CP, Matin SF, Castle EP, Winfield HN, Gettman MT, Lee BR, Thomas R, Patel VR, Leveillee RJ, Wong C, Badlani GH, Rha KH, Eggener SE, Wiklund P, Mottrie A, Atug F, Kural AR, Joseph JV (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Surgery ASfMaB (2009) Position statement on emerging endosurgical interventions for treatment of obesity. Surg Obes Relat Dis 5:297–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, Minter RM, Upperman J, Wilson M, Adams R, Goldman EB, Angelos P, Krummel T, Greenfield LJ (2008) Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 206:1204–1209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perrier ND, Randolph GW, Inabnet WB, Marple BF, VanHeerden J, Kuppersmith RB (2010) Robotic thyroidectomy: a framework for new technology assessment and safe implementation. Thyroid 20:1327–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Urogynecologic Society’s Guidelines Development Committee (2012) Guidelines for providing privileges and credentials to physicians for transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 18:194–197Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    RACS (2007) General guidelines for assessing, approving & introducing new surgical procedures into a hospital or health service. ASERNIP-S. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  11. 11.
    Stefanidis D, Montero P, Urbach D, Qureshi A, Petersen R, Bachman S, Madan A, Perry K, Pryonr A (2014) SAGES research agenda in gastroinstestinal and endoscopic surgery: updated results of a Delphi study. Surg Endosc (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SAGES (2010) Framework for post-residency surgical education & training. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. Updated 2010. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  13. 13.
    SAGES (2010) Guidelines for institutions granting privileges utilizing laparoscopic and/or thoracoscopic techniques. Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  14. 14.
    Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM (2006) Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 244:686–693PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M (2012) Introducing a knee endoprosthesis model increases risk of early revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1711–1717PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sachdeva AK, Russell TR (2007) Safe introduction of new procedures and emerging technologies in surgery: education, credentialing, and privileging. Surg Clin North Am 87:853–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wulsin L, Dougherty A (2008) A briefing on health technology assessment. California State Library, Sacramento. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  18. 18.
    SAGES (2009) The definitions document: a reference for use of SAGES guidelines. Society of American Gastroinstestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  19. 19.
    McGregor M, Brophy JM (2005) End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21:263–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spigelman AD (2006) Governance and innovation: experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg 76:9–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    SAGES (2013) TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: LINX® reflux management system. Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  22. 22.
    Poulin P, Austen L, Scott CM, Waddell CD, Dixon E, Poulin M, Lafreniere R (2013) Multi-criteria development and incorporation into decision tools for health technology adoption. J Health Organ Manag 27:246–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Campbell WB, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Feldman LS, Flum DR, Maddern GJ, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Ergina PL, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Meakins J, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The IDEAL Collaboration. Accessed 14 June 2014
  25. 25.
    See WA, Cooper CS, Fisher RJ (1993) Predictors of laparoscopic complications after formal training in laparoscopic surgery. JAMA 270:2689–2692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyman S, Sedrakyan A, Do H, Razzano R, Mushlin AI (2011) Infrequent physician use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators risks patient safety. Heart 97:1655–1660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Renaud M, Reibel N, Zarnegar R, Germain A, Quilliot D, Ayav A, Bresler L, Brunaud L (2013) Multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Obes Surg 23:1753–1760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holzhey DM, Seeburger J, Misfeld M, Borger MA, Mohr FW (2013) Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center. Circulation 128:483–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Tekkis P, Hanna GB (2012) Learning curve and case selection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and international multicenter analysis of 4852 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 55:1300–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pucher PH, Sodergren MH, Singh P, Darzi A, Parakseva P (2013) Have we learned from lessons of the past? A systematic review of training for single incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 27:1478–1484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sachdeva AK (2005) Acquiring skills in new procedures and technology: the challenge and the opportunity. Arch Surg 140:387–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    AdvaMed (2009) Code of ethics on interactions with health care professionals. Advanced Medical Technology Association, Washington, DC. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  33. 33.
    Chang DC, Easterlin MC, Montesa C, Kaushal K, Wilson SE (2012) Adoption of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in California: lessons for future dissemination of surgical technology. Ann Vasc Surg 26:468–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sidhu RS, Vikis E, Cheifetz R, Phang T (2006) Self-assessment during a 2-day laparoscopic colectomy course: can surgeons judge how well they are learning new skills? Am J Surg 191:677–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jelovsek JE, Walters MD, Korn A, Klingele C, Zite N, Ridgeway B, Barber MD (2010) Establishing cutoff scores on assessments of surgical skills to determine surgical competence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sedlack RE (2011) Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc 74:355–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grigg OA, Farewell VT, Spiegelhalter DJ (2003) Use of risk-adjusted CUSUM and RSPRT charts for monitoring in medical contexts. Stat Methods Med Res 12:147–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chang WR, McLean IP (2006) CUSUM: a tool for early feedback about performance? BMC Med Res Methodol 6:8PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Greenberg D, Peterburg Y, Vekstein D, Pliskin JS (2005) Decisions to adopt new technologies at the hospital level: insights from Israeli medical centers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21:219–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Annetine C, Gelijns HVD (eds) (1994) Committee on technological innovation in medicine IoM. Adopting new medical technology. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grunwald T, Krummel T, Sherman R (2004) Advanced technologies in plastic surgery: how new innovations can improve our training and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1556–1567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Patel A, Patel M, Lytle N, Toro JP, Medbery RL, Bluestein S, Perez SD, Sweeney JF, Davis SS, Lin E (2013) Can we become better robot surgeons through simulator practice? Surg Endosc 28(3):847–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stefanidis D (2010) Optimal acquisition and assessment of proficiency on simulators in surgery. Surg Clin North Am 90:475–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ellison EC, Carey LC (2008) Lessons learned from the evolution of the laparoscopic revolution. Surg Clin North Am 88:927–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bergqvist D (2009) Introduction of new technology: the surgical point of view. Scand J Surg 98:3–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zietman A, Ibbott G (2012) A clinical approach to technology assessment: how do we and how should we choose the right treatment? Semin Radiat Oncol 22:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios Stefanidis
    • 1
  • Robert D. Fanelli
    • 2
  • Ray Price
    • 3
  • William Richardson
    • 4
  • SAGES Guidelines Committee
  1. 1.Carolinas Healthcare SystemCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.The Guthrie ClinicSayreUSA
  3. 3.Intermountain Surgical SpecialistsSalt Lake CityUSA
  4. 4.Ochsner Medical CenterNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations