No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations

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.

Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review

PURPOSE: To assess the literature on accuracy and clinical performance of computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information about (1) the accuracy and (2) clinical performance of computer-assisted implant systems. Meta-regression analysis was performed for summarizing the accuracy studies. Failure/complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 12-month proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine different image guidance systems were included. From 2,827 articles, 13 clinical and 19 accuracy studies were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (19 clinical and preclinical studies) revealed a total mean error of 0.74 mm (maximum of 4.5 mm) at the entry point in the bone and 0.85 mm at the apex (maximum of 7.1 mm). For the 5 included clinical studies (total of 506 implants) using computer-assisted implant dentistry, the mean failure rate was 3.36% (0% to 8.45%) after an observation period of at least 12 months. In 4.6% of the treated cases, intraoperative complications were reported; these included limited interocclusal distances to perform guided implant placement, limited primary implant stability, or need for additional grafting procedures. CONCLUSION: Differing levels and quantity of evidence were available for computer-assisted implant placement, revealing high implant survival rates after only 12 months of observation in different indications and a reasonable level of accuracy. However, future long-term clinical data are necessary to identify clinical indications and to justify additional radiation doses, effort, and costs associated with computer-assisted implant surgery.

Surgical glove perforation and the risk of surgical site infection

HYPOTHESIS: Clinically apparent surgical glove perforation increases the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: University Hospital Basel, with an average of 28,000 surgical interventions per year. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive series of 4147 surgical procedures performed in the Visceral Surgery, Vascular Surgery, and Traumatology divisions of the Department of General Surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was SSI occurrence as assessed pursuant to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention standards. The primary predictor variable was compromised asepsis due to glove perforation. RESULTS: The overall SSI rate was 4.5% (188 of 4147 procedures). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed a higher likelihood of SSI in procedures in which gloves were perforated compared with interventions with maintained asepsis (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.8; P < .001). However, multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that the increase in SSI risk with perforated gloves was different for procedures with vs those without surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (test for effect modification, P = .005). Without antimicrobial prophylaxis, glove perforation entailed significantly higher odds of SSI compared with the reference group with no breach of asepsis (adjusted OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.7-10.8; P = .003). On the contrary, when surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis was applied, the likelihood of SSI was not significantly higher for operations in which gloves were punctured (adjusted OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.9; P = .26). CONCLUSION: Without surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, glove perforation increases the risk of SSI.

The association of preoperative anemia and perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion with the risk of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to investigate allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) and preoperative anemia as risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort of 5873 consecutive general surgical procedures at Basel University Hospital was analyzed to determine the relationship between perioperative ABT and preoperative anemia and the incidence of SSI. ABT was defined as transfusion of leukoreduced red blood cells during surgery and anemia as hemoglobin concentration of less than 120 g/L before surgery. Surgical wounds and resulting infections were assessed to Centers for Disease Control standards. RESULTS: The overall SSI rate was 4.8% (284 of 5873). In univariable logistic regression analyses, perioperative ABT (crude odds ratio [OR], 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.0; p < 0.001) and preoperative anemia (crude OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.7; p = 0.037) were significantly associated with an increased odds of SSI. After adjusting for 13 characteristics of the patient and the procedure in multivariable analyses, associations were substantially reduced for ABT (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.9; p = 0.310; OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0; p = 0.817 for 1-2 blood units and >or=3 blood units, respectively) and anemia (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.2; p = 0.530). Duration of surgery was the main confounding variable. CONCLUSION: Our findings point to important confounding factors and strengthen existing doubts on leukoreduced ABT during general surgery and preoperative anemia as risk factors for SSIs.

Impact of surgical training on incidence of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND: Despite availability of other training forms, tutorial assistance cannot be entirely replaced in surgical education. Concerns exist that tutorial assistance may lead to an increased rate of surgical site infection (SSI). The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the risk of SSI is higher after surgery with tutorial assistance than after surgery performed autonomously by a fully trained surgeon. METHODS: All consecutive visceral, vascular, and traumatological inpatient procedures at a Swiss University Hospital were prospectively recorded during a 24-month period, and the patients were followed for 12 months to ascertain the occurrence of SSI. Using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the association of tutorial assistance surgery with SSI in 6,103 interventions. RESULTS: Autonomously performed surgery was associated with SSI in univariable analysis (5.36% SSI vs. 3.81% for tutorial assistance, p = 0.006). In multivariable analysis, the odds of SSI for tutorial assistance was no longer significantly lower (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.62-1.09; p = 0.163). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical training does not lead to higher SSI rate if trainees are adequately supervised and interventions are carefully selected. Although other forms of training are useful, tutorial assistance in the operating room continues to be the mainstay of surgical education.

Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a double-blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results

BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding in patients with dental implants. The present study compared two non-surgical mechanical debridement methods of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects (mean age 61.5; S.D+/-12.4), with one implant each, demonstrating peri-implantitis were randomized, and those treated either with titanium hand-instruments or with an ultrasonic device were enrolled. Data were obtained before treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Parametric and non-parametric statistics were used. RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects completed the study. The mean bone loss at implants in both groups was 1.5 mm (SD +/-1.2 mm). No group differences for plaque or gingival indices were found at any time point. Baseline and 6-month mean probing pocket depths (PPD) at implants were 5.1 and 4.9 mm (p=0.30) in both groups. Plaque scores at treated implants decreased from 73% to 53% (p<0.01). Bleeding scores also decreased (p<0.01), with no group differences. No differences in the total bacterial counts were found over time. Higher total bacterial counts were found immediately after treatment (p<0.01) and at 1 week for ultrasonic-treated implants (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: No group differences were found in the treatment outcomes. While plaque and bleeding scores improved, no effects on PPD were identified.

Dimensional ridge alterations following immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites: a six-month prospective cohort study with surgical re-entry

AIM: To assess dimensional ridge alterations following immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve subjects received 12 immediate transmucosal implants in molar extraction sites. Peri-implant defects were treated according to the principles of Guided Bone Regeneration by means of a deproteinized bone substitute and a bioresorbable collagen membrane. Changes in vertical (IS-BD, CREST-BD) and horizontal distances (EC-I, IC-I) of alveolar bony walls to the bottom of the defects (BD) and to the implant surfaces (I) were compared between implant placement and surgical re-entry at 6 months. RESULTS: The implant survival rate at 6 months was 100%. Statistically significant differences (P<0.01) were observed in the mean changes in vertical distances IS-BD and CREST-BD between baseline and re-entry. At re-entry, all peri-implant marginal defects assessed from the internal socket wall to the implant surface (IC-I) were healed. The residual combined thickness of the buccal wall with the newly formed peri-implant bone at sites with an initial thickness of 1 mm was statistically significantly smaller (P<0.05) compared with that of sites with an initial buccal thickness of 2 mm (2.50 +/- 0.76 vs. 4+/-0 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The marginal defects around immediate implants placed in molar extraction sites were completely filled after 6 months of healing through de novo bone formation. Bone resorption was observed from the external aspects of the buccal and oral socket walls. Dimensional changes of the external socket walls were mostly pronounced at the buccal aspects.