Literature DB >> 21246515

Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

J M Blazeby1, N S Blencowe, D R Titcomb, C Metcalfe, A D Hollowood, C P Barham.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment and Long term study (IDEAL) framework makes recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation and adoption, but remains untested.
METHODS: A prospective database was created for the introduction of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy. IDEAL stages of development and evaluation were examined retrospectively in a series of patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), two- or three-phase minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) and open oesophagectomy.
RESULTS: A total of 192 patients were involved. In IDEAL stages 1 and 2a, LAO in 16 patients was uneventful, but two-phase MIO in six patients was abandoned following consecutive technical complications. Two-phase MIO was modified to a three-phase MIO procedure, and the results of LAO (67 patients), three-phase MIO (35) and open techniques (68) were studied in IDEAL stage 2b. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grades III and IV) occurred in 12 (18 per cent), nine (26 per cent) and 14 (21 per cent) LAO, three-phase MIO and open procedures respectively. There were four in-hospital deaths (2 LAO and 2 open).
CONCLUSION: The IDEAL framework is a feasible method for documenting the development and implementation of a procedure. MIO should now be compared with open surgery in a randomized controlled trial (IDEAL stage 3).
Copyright © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21246515     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  9 in total

1.  A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy.

Authors:  Oliver C Burdall; Alexander P Boddy; James Fullick; Jane Blazeby; Richard Krysztopik; Christopher Streets; Andrew Hollowood; Christopher P Barham; Dan Titcomb
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Implementation of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Setting to National Practice.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Melody Ni; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Leonie van der Werf; Jennifer Straatman; Donald van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta; George B Hanna; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Elena Pallari; Sumit Midya; Muntzer Mughal
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-03-31

4.  Feasibility RCT of definitive chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell cancer.

Authors:  J M Blazeby; S Strong; J L Donovan; C Wilson; W Hollingworth; T Crosby; J Nicklin; S J Falk; C P Barham; A D Hollowood; C G Streets; D Titcomb; R Krysztopik; S M Griffin; S T Brookes
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Retrospective analysis of a surgical innovation using the IDEAL framework: radical cystectomy with epidural anaesthesia.

Authors:  Holger Gerullis; Thorsten H Ecke; Dimitri Barski; Carsten Bantel; Andreas Weyland; Jens Uphoff; Thomas Jansen; Friedhelm Wawroschek; Alexander Winter
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal.

Authors:  Giles Birchley; Jonathan Ives; Richard Huxtable; Jane Blazeby
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2020-03

7.  Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Frans van Workum; Bastiaan R Klarenbeek; Nikolaj Baranov; Maroeska M Rovers; Camiel Rosman
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.429

8.  IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages.

Authors:  Peter McCulloch; Jonathan A Cook; Douglas G Altman; Carl Heneghan; Markus K Diener
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-06-18

Review 9.  Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set.

Authors:  R C Macefield; N Wilson; C Hoffmann; J M Blazeby; A G K McNair; K N L Avery; S Potter
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-10-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.