Browsing by Author "Faris, Peter D"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Challenges and potential solutions to the evaluation, monitoring, and regulation of surgical innovations
    (2019-08-27) Roberts, Derek J; Zygun, David A; Ball, Chad G; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W; Faris, Peter D; James, Matthew T; Mrklas, Kelly J; Hemmelgarn, Brenda D; Manns, Braden; Stelfox, Henry T
    Abstract Background As it may be argued that many surgical interventions provide obvious patient benefits, formal, staged assessment of the efficacy and safety of surgical procedures has historically been and remains uncommon. The majority of innovative surgical procedures have therefore often been developed based on anatomical and pathophysiological principles in an attempt to better manage clinical problems. Main Body In this manuscript, we sought to review and contrast the models for pharmaceutical and surgical innovation in North America, including their stages of development and methods of evaluation, monitoring, and regulation. We also aimed to review the present structure of academic surgery, the role of methodological experts and funding in conducting surgical research, and the current system of regulation of innovative surgical procedures. Finally, we highlight the influence that evidence and surgical history, education, training, and culture have on elective and emergency surgical decision-making. The above discussion is used to support the argument that the model used for assessment of innovative pharmaceuticals cannot be applied to that for evaluating surgical innovations. It is also used to support our position that although the evaluation and monitoring of innovative surgical procedures requires a rigorous, fit-for-purpose, and formal system of assessment to protect patient safety and prevent unexpected adverse health outcomes, it will only succeed if it is supported and championed by surgical practice leaders and respects surgical history, education, training, and culture. Conclusion We conclude the above debate by providing a recommended approach to the evaluation, monitoring, and regulation of surgical innovations, which we hope may be used as a guide for all stakeholders involved in interpreting and/or conducting future surgical research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Correction to: Ethical considerations in conducting surgical research in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis
    (2019-10-17) Doig, Christopher J; Page, Stacey A; McKee, Jessica L; Moore, Ernest E; Abu-Zidan, Fikri M; Carroll, Rosemary; Marshall, John C; Faris, Peter D; Tolonen, Matti; Catena, Fausto; Coccolini, Federico; Sartelli, Massimo; Ansaloni, Luca; Minor, Sam F; Peirera, Bruno M; Diaz, Jose J; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W
    The original article [1] contained a typo in author, Federico Coccolini’s name. This has now been corrected.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Efficacy and safety of active negative pressure peritoneal therapy for reducing the systemic inflammatory response after damage control laparotomy (the Intra- peritoneal Vacuum Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    (BioMed Central, 2013-05-16) Roberts, Derek J; Jenne, Craig N; Ball, Chad G; Tiruta, Corina; Léger, Caroline; Xiao, Zhengwen; Faris, Peter D; McBeth, Paul B; Doig, Christopher J; Skinner, Christine R; Ruddell, Stacy G; Kubes, Paul; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Ethical considerations in conducting surgical research in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis
    (2019-08-05) Doig, Christopher J; Page, Stacey A; McKee, Jessica L; Moore, Ernest E; Abu-Zidan, Fikri M; Carroll, Rosemary; Marshall, John C; Faris, Peter D; Tolonen, Matti; Catena, Fausto; Cocolini, Federico; Sartelli, Massimo; Ansaloni, Luca; Minor, Sam F; Peirera, Bruno M; Diaz, Jose J; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W
    Abstract Background Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has high mortality, thought due in part to progressive bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Treatment includes early antibiotics and operative source control. At surgery, open abdomen management with negative-peritoneal-pressure therapy (NPPT) has been hypothesized to mitigate MOF and death, although clinical equipoise for this operative approach exists. The Closed or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ) will prospectively randomize eligible patients intra-operatively to formal abdominal closure or OA with NPTT. We review the ethical basis for conducting research in SCIAS. Main body Research in critically ill incapacitated patients is important to advance care. Conducting research among SCIAS is complicated due to the severity of illness including delirium, need for emergent interventions, diagnostic criteria confirmed only at laparotomy, and obtundation from anaesthesia. In other circumstances involving critically ill patients, clinical experts have worked closely with ethicists to apply principles that balance the rights of patients whilst simultaneously permitting inclusion in research. In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement-2 (TCPS-2) describes six criteria that permit study enrollment and randomization in such situations: (a) serious threat to the prospective participant requires immediate intervention; (b) either no standard efficacious care exists or the research offers realistic possibility of direct benefit; (c) risks are not greater than that involved in standard care or are clearly justified by prospect for direct benefits; (d) prospective participant is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand the complexities of the research; (e) third-party authorization cannot be secured in sufficient time; and (f) no relevant prior directives are known to exist that preclude participation. TCPS-2 criteria are in principle not dissimilar to other (inter)national criteria. The COOL study will use waiver of consent to initiate enrollment and randomization, followed by surrogate or proxy consent, and finally delayed informed consent in subjects that survive and regain capacity. Conclusions A delayed consent mechanism is a practical and ethical solution to challenges in research in SCIAS. The ultimate goal of consent is to balance respect for patient participants and to permit participation in new trials with a reasonable opportunity for improved outcome and minimal risk of harm.