Explore the vast range of titles available.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

This study sought to synthesize survival outcomes from trials of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether expert acceptance of this technology in the literature has parallel cumulative survival evidence. A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted. The primary outcome was survival, and meta-analysis of time-to-event data was conducted. Expert opinion in the literature (published reviews, guidelines, and textbook chapters) on the acceptability of laparoscopic colorectal cancer was graded using a 7-point scale. Pooled survival data were correlated in time with accumulating expert opinion scores. A total of 5,800 citations were screened. Of these, 39 publications pertaining to 23 individual trials were retained. As well, 414 reviews were included (28 guidelines, 30 textbook chapters, 20 systematic reviews, 336 narrative reviews). In total, 5,782 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 3,031) and open (n = 2,751) colorectal surgery. Survival data were presented in 16 publications. Laparoscopic surgery was not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.80, 1.09). Expert opinion in the literature pertaining to the oncologic acceptability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer correlated most closely with the publication of large RCTs in 2002-2004. Although increasingly accepted since 2006, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is non-inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival, and has been so since 2004. The majority expert opinion in the literature has considered these two techniques to be equivalent since 2002-2004. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been increasingly accepted since 2006, but remains controversial. Knowledge translation efforts in this field appear to have paralleled the accumulation of clinical trial evidence.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

This article characterizes the Canadian hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery workforce (demographics, practice patterns, career satisfaction, education and recruitment plans). This information will serve as a baseline for future national comparisons, allow informed workforce planning and facilitate mathematical modelling of the HPB workforce in Canada.

The IDEAL framework describes the stages of evaluation for surgical innovations. This paper considers the role of observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. At the exploration stage, the surgical intervention is usually more widely used, and observational studies should collect prospective data from multiple surgeons, deal with factors such as case mix and learning, and prepare for a definitive evaluation at the next stage of assessment. Although a randomised controlled trial is preferable, a high quality observational study would be acceptable if a randomised trial is not feasible or, on rare occasions, deemed unnecessary.

The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain. To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery. This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge. Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled. The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.

Background: Interest in the training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills is extending beyond the realm of the operating room to the use of laparoscopic simulators. The purpose of this study was to develop a series of structured tasks to objectively measure laparoscopic skills. This model was then used to test for the effects of level of training and practice on performance. Methods: Forty-two subjects (6 each of surgical residents PGY1 to PGY5, 6 surgeons who practice laparoscopy and 6 who do not) were evaluated. Each subject viewed a 20-minute introductory video, then was tested performing 7 laparoscopic tasks (peg transfers, pattern cutting, clip and divide, endolooping, mesh placement and fixation, suturing with intracorporeal or extracorporeal knots). Performance was measured using a scoring system rewarding precision and speed. Each candidate repeated all 7 tasks and was rescored. Data were analyzed by linear regression to assess the relationship of performance with level of residency training for each task, and by ANOVA with repeated measures to test for effects of level of training, of repetition, and of the interaction between level of training and repetition on overall performance. Student’s t test was used to evaluate differences between laparoscopic and nonlaparoscopic surgeons and between each of these groups and the PGY 5 level of surgical residents. Results: Significant predictors of overall performance were (a) level of training ( P = 0.002), (b) repetition ( P < 0.0001), and (c) interaction between level of training and practice ( P = 0.001). There was also a significant interaction between level of training and the specific task on performance scores ( P = 0.006). When each task was evaluated individually for the 30 residents, 4 of the 7 tasks (tasks 1, 2, 6, 7) showed significant correlation between PGY level and score. A significant difference in performance scores between laparoscopic and nonlaparoscopic surgeons was seen for tasks 1, 2, and 6. Conclusions: A model was developed to evaluate laparoscopic skills. Construct validity was demonstrated by measuring significant improvement in performance with increasing residency training, and with practice. Further validation will require correlation of performance in the model with skill in vivo.

Fig. 1. CT suggests a diverticulum in the fourth stage of the duodenum (arrow-head) with surrounding fat stranding and a contained perforation. There also seems to be an uninflamed diverticulum in the second stage of the duodenum (arrow), which most likely represents the neck of a single large diverticulum. At operation, the duodenum was kocherized. Bile-stained fluid was found around a large, friable, perforated duodenal diverticulum, the neck of which was immediately distal to the ampulla of Vater, extending posteromedially behind the head of the pancreas. A feeding catheter introduced via the ampulla of Vater through an anterolateral longitudinal duodenotomy. The diverticulum was inverted within the lumen of the duodenum and stapled off. The duodenotomy was closed in 2 layers and a closed-suction drain placed lateral to the duodenotomy. The patient's recovery was uncomplicated.