Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation in Surgery: Idea, Development, Assessment, Exploration, and Long-Term Monitoring (IDEAL) Guidelines

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1024 Accesses

Abstract

The evidentiary standards to support the regulatory approval and dissemination of surgical innovation have historically been low. The IDEAL Collaboration has developed a framework and specific recommendations how to improve the development of surgical innovation that is finding increase recognition by researchers, editors, funders and regulators worldwide. In this chapter, we describe the IDEAL recommendations as they apply to robotic-assisted surgery in urology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87:408–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Research Id. US Market for Surgical Navigation Systems and Robotics— 2014 [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://idataresearch.com/u-s-surgical-navigation-system-market-2014/

  3. Administration UF and D. Medical devices: device approvals and clearances. [Internet]. [cited .2016 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/deviceapprovalsandclearances/default.htm.

  4. Dahm P, Sedrakyan A, McCulloch P. Application of the IDEAL framework to robotic urologic surgery. Eur Urol. 2014;65:849–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ergina P, Cook J, Blazeby J, Boutron I, Clavien P, Reeves B, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. The Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1097–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barkun J, Aronson J, Feldman L, Maddern G, Strasberg S, Altman D, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. The Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1089–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Saglam R, Muslumanoglu AY, Tokatli Z, Caşkurlu T, Sarica K, Taşçi AI, et al. A new robot for flexible ureteroscopy: development and early clinical results (IDEAL Stage 1-2b). Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1092–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McCulloch P, Cook J, Altman DG, Heneghan C, Diener MK, Group I. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ. 2013;346:f3012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Saetta A, Barai I, Rajmohan S, Orgill DP. A protocol for the development of reporting criteria for surgical case reports: The SCARE statement. Int J Surg. 2016;27:187–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26828281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ergina PL, Barkun JS, McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ. 2013;346:f3011. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360123&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gumus E, Boylu U, Turan T, Onol FF. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25(10):1633–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21815823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, Castle E, et al. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the international robotic cystectomy consortium. Eur Urol. 2010;58(2):197–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(15):1171–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17652279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sood A, Ghosh P, Jeong W, Khanna S, Das J, Bhandari M, et al. Minimally invasive kidney transplantation: perioperative considerations and key 6-month outcomes. Transplantation. 2015;99(2):316–23. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&NEWS=n&CSC=Y&PAGE=fulltext&D=ovft&AN=00007890-201502150-00019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ. 2007;334(7589):349–51. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20506408

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, Silberstein J, Keren Paz GE, Donat SM, et al. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1042–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blencowe NS, Blazeby JM, Donovan JL, Mills N. Novel ways to explore surgical interventions in randomised controlled trials: applying case study methodology in the operating theatre. Trials. 2015;16:589. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26710760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cook J, McCulloch P, Blazeby J, Beard D, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A, et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Tseng TY, Cancel QV, Fesperman SF, Kuebler HR, Sun L, Robertson CN, et al. The role of early adopter bias for new technologies in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177(4):1318–23. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534706030692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–64. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota Hospital and Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Vikram Narayan & Giulia Ippolito Lane

  2. Cochrane Urology Group, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Philipp Dahm

Authors
  1. Vikram Narayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulia Ippolito Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philipp Dahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Dahm .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok K. Hemal

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Narayan, V., Lane, G.I., Dahm, P. (2018). Innovation in Surgery: Idea, Development, Assessment, Exploration, and Long-Term Monitoring (IDEAL) Guidelines. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation