Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 6–9 | Cite as

Surgical innovation

Review Article

Abstract

Innovation has been an integral part of the progress of surgery. Technological advances have given a different dimension to the intricacies of modern surgery. While some innovations have been ground-breaking, others made only a transitory impression. This article attempts to distinguish between a true innovation and a technical refinement and explores the ethos and socio-economic factors that propel surgical innovation. The role of validation and regulation of these innovative procedures in producing improved outcomes are also discussed.

Keywords

Innovation Surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rutkow IM (1993) Surgery: An illustrated history. St Louis: MosbyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reitsma AM, Moreno JD (2002) Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg 194: 792–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCarthy CR (1984) Regulatory aspects of the distinction between research and medical practice. IRB 6:7–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brower V (2003) The ethics of innovation. EMBO reports 4:338–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morgenstern L (2006) Innovative Surgery’s Dilemma. Surgical Innovation 13:73–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corcione F (2005) Preface In Corcione F (editor) New Procedures in Open Hernia Surgery. New Delhi: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The BUPA Foundation, London. Available at www.bupafoundation.com/asp/about/latest_news_artcles/surgical innovation.asp. Accessed on 2nd February 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin SM, Lin CJ, Lin CC, Hsu CW, Chen YC (2005) Randomised controlled trial comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal ablation, percutaneous ethanol injection, and percutaneous acetic acid injection to treat hepatocellular carcinoma of 3 cm or less. Gut 54:1151–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desarda MP (2006) Physiological repair of inguinal hernia: a new technique (study of 860 patients). Hernia 10: 143–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carino T, Scheingold S, Tunis S (2004) Using clinical trials as a condition of coverage. Clin Trials 1:108–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baron TH (2007) Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 94:1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iserson KV, Chiasson PM (2002) The ethics of applying new medical technologies. Semin Laparosc Surg 9:222–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Totally endoscopic robotically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Interventional procedure guidance 128. NICE: London, 2005Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures- Surgical, Sydney. Available at www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu. Accessed on 2nd February 2007Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Udwadia TE (2006) Inguinal hernia repair: The total picture. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2:144–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tongaonkar RR, Reddy BV, Mehta VK, Singh NS, Shivada S (2003) Preliminary multicentric trial of cheap indigenous mosquito-net cloth for tension-free hernia repair. Ind J Surg 65:89–95Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marks HM (1997) The progress of experiment. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMedica North Bengal ClinicSiliguriIndia

Personalised recommendations