Cargando…
Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review
INTRODUCTION: Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9593068/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36281734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac116 |
_version_ | 1784815075246211072 |
---|---|
author | Kirkham, Emily N Jones, Conor S Higginbotham, George Biggs, Sarah Dewi, Ffion Dixon, Lauren Huttman, Marc Main, Barry G Ramirez, Jozel Robertson, Harry Scroggie, Darren L Zucker, Benjamin Blazeby, Jane M Blencowe, Natalie S Pathak, Samir |
author_facet | Kirkham, Emily N Jones, Conor S Higginbotham, George Biggs, Sarah Dewi, Ffion Dixon, Lauren Huttman, Marc Main, Barry G Ramirez, Jozel Robertson, Harry Scroggie, Darren L Zucker, Benjamin Blazeby, Jane M Blencowe, Natalie S Pathak, Samir |
author_sort | Kirkham, Emily N |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines. METHODS: Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting. RESULTS: Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less. CONCLUSION: The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9593068 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95930682022-11-22 Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review Kirkham, Emily N Jones, Conor S Higginbotham, George Biggs, Sarah Dewi, Ffion Dixon, Lauren Huttman, Marc Main, Barry G Ramirez, Jozel Robertson, Harry Scroggie, Darren L Zucker, Benjamin Blazeby, Jane M Blencowe, Natalie S Pathak, Samir BJS Open Systematic Review INTRODUCTION: Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines. METHODS: Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting. RESULTS: Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less. CONCLUSION: The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation. Oxford University Press 2022-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9593068/ /pubmed/36281734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac116 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Kirkham, Emily N Jones, Conor S Higginbotham, George Biggs, Sarah Dewi, Ffion Dixon, Lauren Huttman, Marc Main, Barry G Ramirez, Jozel Robertson, Harry Scroggie, Darren L Zucker, Benjamin Blazeby, Jane M Blencowe, Natalie S Pathak, Samir Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review |
title | Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review |
title_full | Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review |
title_fullStr | Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review |
title_short | Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review |
title_sort | quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the ideal recommendations: systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9593068/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36281734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac116 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kirkhamemilyn qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT jonesconors qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT higginbothamgeorge qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT biggssarah qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT dewiffion qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT dixonlauren qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT huttmanmarc qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT mainbarryg qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT ramirezjozel qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT robertsonharry qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT scroggiedarrenl qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT zuckerbenjamin qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT blazebyjanem qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT blencowenatalies qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT pathaksamir qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview AT qualityofreportingofrobotassistedcholecystectomyinrelationtotheidealrecommendationssystematicreview |