Abstract
In general, progress in surgery depends on experience in the care of patients, accurate record keeping, reflection on the experience, structuring of subsequent clinical experience, and, finally, honest and effective reporting of the results to the surgical community. Often, it takes years before new concepts are accepted, and there are many examples of how the best innovations are greeted with envy and skepticism [1]. In 1805, the first effective lighting system for endoscopy invented by Philippe Bozzini was rejected by the medical faculty of Vienna which defined the new discovery as the “magic lantern” [2].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Lillehei W (1995) New ideas and their acceptance. As it has related to preservation of chordae tendinea and certain other discoveries. J Heart Valve Dis 4(suppl 2):S106–S114
Gorden A (1993) The history and development of endoscopic surgery. Saunders, London
Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM et al (2008) Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 206:1204–1209
Bone J, Livestro DP, Elias SG, Borel Rinkes IHM, van Hillegersberg R (2009) International survey on esophageal cancer: part I surgical techniques. Dis Esophagus 22:195–202
Lagarde SM, Vrouenraets BC, Stassen LPS, Van Lanschot JJB (2010) Evidence-based surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: overview of high-quality studies. Ann Thorac Surg 89:1319–1326
Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM (2006) Innovation in surgery. A historical perspective. Ann Surg 244:686–693
Gawande A (2012) Two hundred years of surgery. N Engl J Med 366:1716–1723
Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB et al (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Gastrointest Endosc 60:114–117
Cosgrove DM (2000) The innovation imperative. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 120:839–842
Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, for the Balliol Collaboration (2009) Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374:1089–1096
Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112
Blazeby JM, Blencowe NS, Titcomb DR, Metcalfe C, Hollowood AD, Barham CP (2011) Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 98:544–551
Blazeby JM, McNair AGK (2011) Commentary: talking to patients about surgical innovations. BMJ 342:d2871
Avorn J (2010) Regulation of devices. BMJ 341:c5730
Resnic FS, Normand SLT (2012) Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices – filling in the gaps. N Engl J Med 366(10):875–877
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bonavina, L. (2012). Assessment of Surgical Innovation. In: Bonavina, L. (eds) Innovation in Esophageal Surgery. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2469-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2469-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2468-7
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2469-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)