Skip to main content
Log in

Innovationen in der Chirurgie – wie können neue Technologien sicher in die Klinik eingeführt werden?

Innovations in surgery—How can new technologies be safely implemented in the clinical practice?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Zurzeit unterliegt die moderne Chirurgie einem deutlichen Wandel im Sinne der Einführung moderner Technologien und innovativer Techniken. Die robotisch-assistierte Chirurgie oder moderne Techniken der Visualisierung stellen die Chirurgie vor bisher ungeahnte Herausforderungen hinsichtlich möglicher und sinnvoller Einsatzgebiete. Soll eine Innovation nicht lediglich als „Machbarkeitsbeweis“ und Zeichen des ungebremsten Fortschrittes eine interessante Singularität bleiben, sondern einen festen Platz im Rahmen standardisierter Therapieabläufe bekommen, bedarf es fester Regularien, welche den Weg von der Innovation hin zur Einführung in die Klinik flankieren. Dieser Übersichtsartikel soll Defizite der bis dato praktizierten Modelle der Einführung neuer Technologien in die Klinik kritisch beleuchten und neue Aspekte und Wege aufzeigen, welche die Einführung von Innovationen im Hinblick insbesondere auf die Patientensicherheit verbessern können.

Abstract

Modern surgery is currently undergoing a significant change in the sense of the introduction of modern technologies and innovative techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery and modern techniques of visualization confront surgery with unprecedented challenges with respect to possible and meaningful areas of application for these innovations. If an innovation is not to remain only an interesting singularity as proof of feasibility and a sign of unchecked progress but is to have a fixed place within the framework of standardized treatment processes, firm regulations are required which flank the path from innovation to introduction into clinical practice. This overview article critically examines the deficits of the currently practiced models of introducing new technologies into the clinical practice and discusses new aspects that can improve the introduction of innovations with particular respect to patient safety.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Nagy B, Farmer JD, Trancik JE, Gonzales JP (2011) Superexponential long-term trends in information technology. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(8):1356–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Celsus AC (1786) Ad optimas editiones collati praemittitur notitia literaria studiis Societatis Bspontinae. Editio accurata

  3. Paré A (1664) Le Oeuvres d’Ambroise Paré, Conseiller, et Premier Chirurgien de Roy. G. Buon, Paris

  4. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS et al (2009) Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374(9695):1089–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, Minter RM et al (2008) Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 206(6):1204–1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Krummel TM, Gertner M, Makower J et al (2006) Inventing our future: training the next generation of surgeon innovators. Semin Pediatr Surg 15(4):309–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Krummel TM (2006) The ethics of innovation in pediatric surgery. Semin Pediatr Surg 15(4):319–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374(9695):1105–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McAllister TN, Maruszewski M, Garrido SA et al (2009) Effectiveness of haemodialysis access with an autologous tissue-engineered vascular graft: a multicentre cohort study. Lancet 373(9673):1440–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McKneally MF, Daar AS (2003) Introducing new technologies: protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research. World J Surg 27(8):930–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reitsma AM, Moreno JD (2006) Ethics guidelines for innovative surgery: recommendations for national policy. In: Ethical guidelines for innovative surgery. University Publishing Group, Hagerstown, S 199–212

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz JA (2014) Innovation in pediatric surgery: the surgical innovation continuum and the ETHICAL model. J Pediatr Surg 49(4):639–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hutchison K, Rogers W, Eyers A et al (2015) Getting clearer about surgical innovation: a new definition and a new tool to support responsible practice. Ann Surg 262(6):949–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blakely B, Selwood A, Rogers WA et al (2016) Macquarie surgical innovation identification tool (MSIIT): a study protocol for a usability and pilot test. BMJ Open 6(11):e13704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J et al (2019) No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg 269(2):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sweet BV, Schwemm AK, Parsons DM et al (2011) Review of the processes for FDA oversight of drugs, medical devices, and combination products. J Manag Care Pharm 17(1):40–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Roberts DJ, Zygun DA, Ball CG et al (2019) Challenges and potential solutions to the evaluation, monitoring, and regulation of surgical innovations. BMC Surg 19(1):119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shawan RR, Hatch QM, Bingham JR et al (2015) Have we progressed in the surgical literature? Thirty-year trends in clinical studies in 3 surgical journals. Dis Colon Rectum 58(1):115–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374(9695):1097–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Francis DM (2009) Surgical decision making. ANZ J Surg 79(12):886–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marcus RK, Lillemoe HA, Caudle AS et al (2019) Facilitation of surgical innovation: Is it possible to speed the introduction of new technology while simultaneously improving patient safety? Ann Surg 270(6):937–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y et al (2016) A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 264(4):640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Garfinkle R, Abou-Khalil M, Bhatnagar S et al (2018) A comparison of pathologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic resections for rectal cancer using the ACS-NSQIP proctectomy-targeted database: a propensity score analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 23(2):348–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. van Hilst J, de Rooij T, Klompmaker S et al (2019) Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-European propensity score matched study. Ann Surg 269(1):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Bahra.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Bahra und J. Pratschke geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bahra, M., Pratschke, J. Innovationen in der Chirurgie – wie können neue Technologien sicher in die Klinik eingeführt werden?. Chirurg 91, 553–560 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01195-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01195-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation