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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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