A systematic review of robot-assisted cholecystectomy to examine the quality of reporting in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review.

Autor:	Kirkham EN; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK., Jones CS; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; North Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Higginbotham G; North Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Biggs S; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Dewi F; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Dixon L; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Huttman M; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University College Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK., Main BG; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.; Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; NIHR Bristol Biomedical research centre, Bristol, UK., Ramirez J; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Robertson H; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London., Scroggie DL; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Zucker B; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK., Blazeby JM; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; NIHR Bristol Biomedical research centre, Bristol, UK., Blencowe NS; Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.; NIHR Bristol Biomedical research centre, Bristol, UK., Pathak S; St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	BJS open [BJS Open] 2022 Sep 02; Vol. 6 (5).
DOI:	10.1093/bjsopen/zrac116
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines. Methods: Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting. Results: Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less. Conclusion: The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation. (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu