World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 543–548 | Cite as

Introducing new technology safely into urological practice

  • Siska Van Bruwaene
  • Benjamin Namdarian
  • Ben Challacombe
  • Ben Eddy
  • Ignace Billiet
Topic Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical innovation is necessary to ensure continued improvement in patient care. However, several challenges unique to the surgical craft are encountered during the development and validation of such new technology. This article highlights some of these challenges and gives an overview of existing solutions.

Methods

A Pubmed review was performed about the “introduction of new technology” to identify challenges. Cross-referencing was used to explore the possible solutions per challenge.

Results

Several characteristics of the surgical craft itself limit our ability to establish randomised controlled trials and hence provide clear categorical evidence. Existing certification bodies for new technology often use unstructured regulations and allow fast-track bypassing systems. Consequently the IDEAL framework (innovation, development, exploration, assessment, long-term follow-up) proposes an objective scientific approach whilst defining stakeholder responsibilities. The selection of which new modality to implement is heavily influenced by third parties unrelated to the best patient outcomes and thus professional organisations can aid in this decision-making. Appropriate training of surgeons and their teams until proficiency is achieved is essential prior to credentialling. Finally long-term surveillance of outcomes in the form of registries is an increasing responsibility of the urological community to maintain our role in directing the adoption or rejection of these innovations.

Conclusion

Urological innovation is a dynamic and challenging process. Increasing efforts are identified within the urological community to render the process more reliable and transparent.

Keywords

Surgical innovation Implementation Training Development Regulation 

Notes

Authors’ contributions

SVB: protocol development, manuscript writing and editing. BN: manuscript writing and editing. BC: manuscript editing. BE: manuscript editing. IB: manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Van Bruwaene, Dr. Namdarian and Dr. Billiet declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe and Dr. Eddy are proctors for Intuitive Surgical.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Mytton OT, Velazquez A, Banken R, Mathew JL, Ikonen TS et al (2010) Introducing new technology safely. Qual Saf Health Care 19(Suppl 2):i9–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM et al (2009) Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374(9695):1089–1096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaul S, Menon M (2006) Robotic radical prostatectomy: evolution from conventional to VIP. World J Urol 24(2):152–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374(9695):1097–1104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamdy FC (2016) The Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) study: what have we learnt? BJU Int 118(6):843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groeben C, Koch R, Baunacke M, Worth M, Huber J (2017) High volume is the key for improving in-hospital outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2013. World J Urol 35:1045–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zargar-Shoshtari K, Lawrentschuk N, Zargar H (2017) Robotic prostatectomy delivers on the promise of minimally invasive surgery: commentary on: robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Urology 99:3–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Udovicich C, Perera M, Huq M, Wong LM, Lenaghan D (2017) Hospital volume and perioperative outcomes for radical cystectomy: a population study. BJU Int 119(Suppl 5):26–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Djaladat H, Katebian B, Bazargani ST, Miranda G, Cai J et al (2017) 90-Day complication rate in patients undergoing radical cystectomy with enhanced recovery protocol: a prospective cohort study. World J Urol 35:907–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Norman GA (2016) Drugs and devices. Comparison of European and US approval processes. JACC: basic to translational. Science 1(5):399–412Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lois Rogers (2015). Scandal of fruit netting ‘approved as surgical implant’ The Sunday Times. January 11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magistro G, Chapple CR, Elhilali M, Gilling P, McVary KT et al (2017) Emerging minimally invasive treatment options for male lower urinary tract symptoms. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.005 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCulloch P (2011) The IDEAL recommendations and urological innovation. World J Urol 29:331–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P et al (2016) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374(9695):1105–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mirheydar HS, Parsons JK (2013) Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety curves, and the public health. World J Urol 31(3):455–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barbagli G, Rimondi C, Balo S, Butnaru D, Sansalone S et al (2017) Bulbar urethral strictures: results from an investigative pilot stage 2a study. Urology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.039 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sood A, Hemal A, Assimos D, Peabody J, Menon M, Ghani K (2016) Robotic anatrophic nephrolithotomy utilizing near-infrared fluorescence image-guidance: idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term monitoring (IDEAL) stage 0 animal model study. Urology 94:117–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lima E, Rodrigues P, Mota P, Carvalho N, Dias E, Correia-Pinto J, Autorino R, Vilaça J (2016) Ureteroscopy-assisted percutaneous kidney access made easy: first clinical experience with a novel navigation system using electromagnetic guidance (IDEAL stage 1). Eur Urol 72(4):610–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buijs M, van Lienden KP, Wagstaff PG, Scheltema MJ, de Bruin DM et al (2017) Irreversible electroporation for the ablation of renal cell carcinoma: a prospective, human, in vivo study protocol (IDEAL phase 2b). JMIR Res Protoc 6(2):e21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerullis H, Barski D, Georgas E, Borós M, Ramon A et al (2017) Protocol for a randomized phase II trial for mesh optimization by autologous plasma coating in prolapse repair: IDEAL stage 3. Adv Ther 34(4):995–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sachdeva AK, Russell TR (2007) Safe introduction of new procedures and emerging technologies in surgery: education, credentialing and privileging. Surg Clin N Am 87:853–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Strong VE, Forde KA, MacFadyen BV, Mellinger JD, Crookes PF et al (2014) Ethical considerations regarding the implementation of new technologies and techniques in surgery. Surg Endosc 28:2272–2276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson CB (2006) Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 332(7533):112–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ray A, Morgan H, Wilkes A, Carter K, Carolan-Rees G (2016) The urolift system for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 14:515–526CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pradarelli JC, Thornton JP, Dimick JB (2017) Who is responsible for the safe introduction of new surgical technology? Precedent from the da Vinci Surgical System Trials. JAMA Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0841 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bass B, Polk HC, Jones RS, Townsend CM, Whittemore AD et al (2009) Surgical privileging and credentialling: a report of a discussion and study group of the american surgical association. J Am Coll Surg 209(3):396–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zorn K, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182(3):1126–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rashid P, Gianduzzo TR (2016) Urology technical and non-technical skills development: the emerging role of simulation. BJU Int 117(Suppl 4):9–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aho T, Herrmann TR (2015) Description of a modular mentorship programme for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. World J Urol 33:497–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stephens C, Zimmern PE (2015) Expansion of the role of web-based social networks related to synthetic mesh/tape complications. World J Urol 33(7):999–1004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ficko Z, Koo K, Hyams ES (2017) High tech or high risk? An analysis of media reports about robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 11:211–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pearson J, Williamson T, Ischia J, Bolton DM, Frydenberg M, Lawrentschuk N (2015) National nephrectomy registries: reviewing the need for population-based data. Korean J Urol 56(9):607–613CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AZ GroeningeKortrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Trust (GSTT)LondonUK
  3. 3.Kent and Canterbury Hospital, East Kent Hospital Trust (EKHUFT)CanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations