Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical considerations regarding the implementation of new technologies and techniques in surgery

  • Consensus Statement
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethical considerations relevant to the implementation of new surgical technologies and techniques are explored and discussed in practical terms in this statement, including (1) How is the safety of a new technology or technique ensured?; (2) What are the timing and process by which a new technology or technique is implemented at a hospital?; (3) How are patients informed before undergoing a new technology or technique?; (4) How are surgeons trained and credentialed in a new technology or technique?; (5) How are the outcomes of a new technology or technique tracked and evaluated?; and (6) How are the responsibilities to individual patients and society at large balanced? The following discussion is presented with the intent to encourage thought and dialogue about ethical considerations relevant to the implementation of new technologies and new techniques in surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology

  2. New York Times, Obituaries, July 27, 2003

  3. Bhattacharya K (2007) Kurt Semm: a laparoscopic crusader. J Minim Access Surg 3:35–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barkun JS (1992) Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus mini cholecystectomy. The McGill Gallstone Treatment Group. Lancet 340:1116–1119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams LF Jr, Chapman WC, Bonau RA et al (1993) Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy in a single center. Am J Surg 165:459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Southern Surgeons Club (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies—The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Joseph M, Phillips MR, Farrell TM et al (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher bile duct injury rate: a review and a word of caution. Ann Surg 256:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Starnes BW (2013) A surgeon’s perspective regarding the regulatory, compliance, and legal issues involved with physician-modified devices. J Vasc Surg 57:829–831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Strasberg S (2012) Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the introduction of innovative surgical procedures. Ann Surg 256:7–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. NIH The Belmont report 1979: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html)

  11. Sachdeva AK, Russell TR (2007) Safe introduction of new procedures and emerging technologies in surgery: education, credentialing, and privileging. Surg Clin N Am 87:853–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. http://www.sages.org/about/resources/

  13. Weaver JP (1984) The problem with the operative permit. Surg Gynecol Obstet 159:579–580

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weaver JP (1987) Beyond the operative permit. NC Med J 48:74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzgibbons SC, Chen J, Jaqsi R, Weinstein D (2012) Long-term follow-up on the educational impact of ACGME duty hour limits: a pre-post survey study. Ann Surg 256:1108–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Antiel RM, Reed DA, Van Arendonk KJ et al (2013) Effects of duty hour restrictions on core competencies, education, quality of life, and burnout among general surgery interns. JAMA Surg 148:448–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bell RH Jr, Biester TW, Tabuenca A et al (2009) Operative experience of residents in US general surgery programs: a gap between expectation and experience. Ann Surg 249:719–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Valentine RJ, Jones A, Biester TW et al (2011) General surgery workloads and practice patterns in the United States, 2007 to 2009: a 10-year update from the American Board of Surgery. Ann Surg 254:520–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bell RH Jr (2011) How to teach uncommon and highly complex operations. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1726–1727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. http://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?news_newreqs

  21. Hafford MD, Van Sickle KR, Willis RE et al (2013) Ensuring competency: are fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training and certification necessary for practicing surgeons and operating room personnel? Surg Endosc 27:118–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Derevianko AY, Schwaitzberg SD, Tsuda S et al (2010) Malpractice carrier underwrites fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training and testing: a benchmark for patient safety. Surg Endosc 24:616–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Herron DM, Marohn M (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:313–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morgenthal CB, Richards WO, Dunkin BJ, Forde KA, Vitale G, Lin E, SAGES Flexible Endoscopy Committee (2007) The role of the surgeon in the evolution of flexible endoscopy. Surg Endosc 21:838–853 (Epub 16 Dec 2006) (review)

  25. Hanly EJ, Zand J, Bachman SL et al (2005) Value of the SAGES Learning Center in introducing new technology. Surg Endosc 19:477–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ho VP, Trencheva K, Stein SL, Milsom JW (2012) Mentorship for participants in a laparoscopic colectomy course. Surg Endosc 26:722–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Feldman LS, Mayrand S, Stanbridge D et al (2001) Laparoscopic fundoplication: a model for assessing new technology in surgical procedures. Surgery 130:686–693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sachdeva AK, Buyske J, Dunnington GL et al (2011) A new paradigm for surgical procedural training. Curr Probl Surg 48:854–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rattner DW, Park A (2003) Advanced devices for the operating room of the future. Semin Laparosc Surg 10:85–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Holland S, Hope T (2012) The ethics of attaching research conditions to access to new health technologies. J Med Ethics 38(6):366–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S (2007) How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 12:73–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. American Board of Internal Medicine, Charter on Medical Professionalism (2002) http://www.abimfoundation.org/Professionalism/Physician-Charter.aspx

  33. American College of Surgeons, Code of Professional Conduct (2003) http://www.facs.org/memberservices/codeofconduct.html

Download references

Disclosures

Dr. Crookes, Dr. Forde, Dr. Sillin, and Dr. Strong: no disclosures. Dr. MacFadyen: Soft Tissue Sciences (Consultant, Advisory Committee). Dr. Mellinger: Gore (Speaking Honorarium). Dr. Shadduck: Allergan Medical (Consultant).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, H-1217, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Vivian E. Strong

  2. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Kenneth A. Forde

  3. University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA

    Bruce V. MacFadyen

  4. Southern Illinois University, Springfield, IL, USA

    John D. Mellinger

  5. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Peter F. Crookes

  6. Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA

    Lelan F. Sillin

  7. Duke Regional Hospital, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Phillip P. Shadduck

Authors
  1. Vivian E. Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth A. Forde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce V. MacFadyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John D. Mellinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter F. Crookes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lelan F. Sillin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Phillip P. Shadduck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivian E. Strong.

Additional information

For the SAGES Ethics Liaison Group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strong, V.E., Forde, K.A., MacFadyen, B.V. et al. Ethical considerations regarding the implementation of new technologies and techniques in surgery. Surg Endosc 28, 2272–2276 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3644-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3644-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation