Publication:

Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2017

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Springer Vienna
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Muskens, I. S., S. J. H. Diederen, J. T. Senders, A. H. Zamanipoor Najafabadi, W. R. van Furth, A. M. May, T. R. Smith, A. L. Bredenoord, and M. L. D. Broekman. 2017. “Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review.” Acta Neurochirurgica 159 (10): 1957-1966. doi:10.1007/s00701-017-3280-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3280-3.

Abstract

Background: Surgical innovation is different from the introduction of novel pharmaceuticals. To help address this, in 2009 the IDEAL Collaboration (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) introduced the five-stage framework for surgical innovation. To evaluate the framework feasibility for novel neurosurgical procedure introduction, two innovative surgical procedures were examined: the endoscopic endonasal approach for skull base meningiomas (EEMS) and the WovenEndobridge (WEB device) for endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Methods: The published literature on EEMS and WEB devices was systematically reviewed. Identified studies were classified according to the IDEAL framework stage. Next, studies were evaluated for possible categorization according to the IDEAL framework. Results: Five hundred seventy-six papers describing EEMS were identified of which 26 papers were included. No prospective studies were identified, and no studies reported on ethical approval or patient informed consent for the innovative procedure. Therefore, no clinical studies could be categorized according to the IDEAL Framework. For WEB devices, 6229 articles were screened of which 21 were included. In contrast to EEMS, two studies were categorized as 2a and two as 2b. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review demonstrate that both EEMS and WEB devices were not introduced according to the (later developed in the case of EEMS) IDEAL framework. Elements of the framework such as informed consent, ethical approval, and rigorous outcomes reporting are important and could serve to improve the quality of neurosurgical research. Alternative study designs and the use of big data could be useful modifications of the IDEAL framework for innovation in neurosurgery. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00701-017-3280-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

IDEAL framework, Innovation, Neurosurgery, Meningioma, Ethics, Intracranial aneurysm, WEB device

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories