Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques

  • Guidelines
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Club TSS (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. SAGES ASGE (2006) Working group on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery white paper October 2005. Gastrointest Endosc 63:199–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 25:2441–2448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Surgeons ACo (1994) Statements on emerging surgical technologies and the evaluation of credentials. Bull Am Coll Surg 79:40–41

    Google Scholar 

  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 182:1126–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Surgery ASfMaB (2009) Position statement on emerging endosurgical interventions for treatment of obesity. Surg Obes Relat Dis 5:297–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 206:1204–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:1327–1332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:194–197

    Google Scholar 

  10. RACS (2007) General guidelines for assessing, approving & introducing new surgical procedures into a hospital or health service. ASERNIP-S. http://www.surgeons.org/media/297973/REA_ASE_3103_P_General_Guidelines_for_Assessing_Approving_Introducing_New_Surgical_Procedures_into_a_Hospital_or_Health_Service.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  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)

  12. SAGES (2010) Framework for post-residency surgical education & training. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. Updated 2010. http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/framework-for-post-residency-surgical-education-training/. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  13. SAGES (2010) Guidelines for institutions granting privileges utilizing laparoscopic and/or thoracoscopic techniques. Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/guidelines-for-institutions-granting-privileges-utilizing-laparoscopic-andor-thoracoscopic-techniques/. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  14. Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM (2006) Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 244:686–693

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M (2012) Introducing a knee endoprosthesis model increases risk of early revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1711–1717

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sachdeva AK, Russell TR (2007) Safe introduction of new procedures and emerging technologies in surgery: education, credentialing, and privileging. Surg Clin North Am 87:853–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wulsin L, Dougherty A (2008) A briefing on health technology assessment. California State Library, Sacramento. http://library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-019.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  18. SAGES (2009) The definitions document: a reference for use of SAGES guidelines. Society of American Gastroinstestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/definitions-document-reference-for-use-of-sages-guidelines/. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  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 21:263–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spigelman AD (2006) Governance and innovation: experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg 76:9–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. SAGES (2013) TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: LINX® reflux management system. Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angeles. http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/tavac-safety-and-effectiveness-analysis-linx-reflux-management-system/. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  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 27:246–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 374:1105–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. The IDEAL Collaboration. http://www.ideal-collaboration.net. Accessed 14 June 2014

  25. See WA, Cooper CS, Fisher RJ (1993) Predictors of laparoscopic complications after formal training in laparoscopic surgery. JAMA 270:2689–2692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lyman S, Sedrakyan A, Do H, Razzano R, Mushlin AI (2011) Infrequent physician use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators risks patient safety. Heart 97:1655–1660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:1753–1760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 128:483–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 55:1300–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:1478–1484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sachdeva AK (2005) Acquiring skills in new procedures and technology: the challenge and the opportunity. Arch Surg 140:387–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. AdvaMed (2009) Code of ethics on interactions with health care professionals. Advanced Medical Technology Association, Washington, DC. http://advamed.org/res.download/112. Accessed 1 Jan 2014

  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 26:468–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 191:677–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 203:81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sedlack RE (2011) Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc 74:355–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:147–170

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chang WR, McLean IP (2006) CUSUM: a tool for early feedback about performance? BMC Med Res Methodol 6:8

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:219–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Annetine C, Gelijns HVD (eds) (1994) Committee on technological innovation in medicine IoM. Adopting new medical technology. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  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 114:1556–1567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):847–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Stefanidis D (2010) Optimal acquisition and assessment of proficiency on simulators in surgery. Surg Clin North Am 90:475–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ellison EC, Carey LC (2008) Lessons learned from the evolution of the laparoscopic revolution. Surg Clin North Am 88:927–941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bergqvist D (2009) Introduction of new technology: the surgical point of view. Scand J Surg 98:3–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 336:924–926

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. The Guthrie Clinic, Sayre, PA, USA

    Robert D. Fanelli

  3. Intermountain Surgical Specialists, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Ray Price

  4. Ochsner Medical Center, 1514 Jefferson Highway, New Orleans, LA, 70121, USA

    William Richardson

Authors
  1. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert D. Fanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ray Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

SAGES Guidelines Committee

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Stefanidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefanidis, D., Fanelli, R.D., Price, R. et al. SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc 28, 2257–2271 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3587-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3587-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation