Análisis

← vista completa

Publicado el 6 de marzo de 2025 | http://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2025.02.3044

Innovación y bioética en cirugía: redefiniendo los límites para un futuro seguro y centrado en el ser humano

Innovation and bioethics in surgery: Redefining boundaries for a safe and human-centered future

Evelyn Frias-Toral, Alex Enrique Vásconez-García, Melannie Toral-Noristz, Martín Campuzano-Donoso, Ana Karina Zambrano, Claudia Reytor-González, Daniel Simancas-Racines

Resumen

Dado que la cirugía es un procedimiento complejo debido a múltiples factores, es más difícil evaluar rigurosamente los procesos innovadores en este campo que los ensayos clínicos de nuevos medicamentos. Poder realizar un diseño de estudio adecuado con todas sus implicaciones correspondientes, alcanzar estándares de alta calidad para estos estudios, asegurar el respeto por los derechos de los pacientes y verificar que se observen sus principios de beneficencia, minimización del riesgo de daño, justicia y autonomía convierten a la innovación en cirugía en un desafío para muchos investigadores y profesionales involucrados en el proceso quirúrgico. Por lo tanto, resulta ventajoso contar con guías que garanticen la calidad metodológica de la investigación sobre procedimientos quirúrgicos innovadores y que incluyan los aspectos éticos involucrados en cada una de sus etapas. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo hacer un repaso histórico de lo que se ha publicado sobre el enfoque ético de la innovación quirúrgica. Además, se explicarán los aspectos éticos de las etapas del marco IDEAL para la innovación quirúrgica.

Esta obra de Medwave está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 3.0 Unported. Esta licencia permite el uso, distribución y reproducción del artículo en cualquier medio, siempre y cuando se otorgue el crédito correspondiente al autor del artículo y al medio en que se publica, en este caso, Medwave.

Autores

Evelyn Frias-Toral

Universidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2228-0141

Alex Enrique Vásconez-García

Human Research Ethics Committee, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5035-9436

Melannie Toral-Noristz

Universidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6194-4047

Martín Campuzano-Donoso

Universidad UTE, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC), Quito, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5317-8548

Ana Karina Zambrano

Universidad UTE, Centro de Investigación Genética y Genómica, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad UTE, Quito, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4102-3965

Claudia Reytor-González

Universidad UTE, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC), Quito, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4234-5524

Daniel Simancas-Racines

Universidad UTE, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC), Quito, Ecuador

dsimancas@ute.edu.ec

Universidad UTE, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC), Quito, Ecuador

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3641-1501

Figuras

Artículo no tiene figuras.

Foro

No hay mensajes

Historial

Citación Frias-Toral E, Vásconez-García AE, Toral-Noristz M, Campuzano-Donoso M, Zambrano AK, Reytor-González Cet al. Innovation and bioethics in surgery: Redefining boundaries for a safe and human-centered future. Medwave 2025;25(02):e3044 doi: 10.5867/medwave.2025.02.3044

Envío 15/11/2024

Aceptación 16/12/2024

Publicación 06/03/2025

Indice

Métricas del artículo

Artículo no tiene métricas.

Notas

Palabras claves

surgical procedures, bioethics, informed consent, health care rationing

Referencias

  1. CARTER BN. The fruition of Halsted’s concept of surgical training. Surgery. 1952;32: 518–27.
  2. Fisher B. From Halsted to prevention and beyond: advances in the management of breast cancer during the twentieth century. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35: 1963–73. | CrossRef
  3. Stefanakis G, Nyktari V, Papaioannou A, Askitopoulou H. Hippocratic concepts of acute and urgent respiratory diseases still relevant to contemporary medical thinking and practice: a scoping review. BMC Pulm Med. 2020;20. | CrossRef
  4. Aust JB, Henderson W, Khuri S, Page CP. The impact of operative complexity on patient risk factors. Ann Surg. 2005;241: 1024–7. | CrossRef
  5. Nawrot O. The biogenetical revolution of the Council of Europe - twenty years of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention). Life Sci Soc Policy. 2018;14. | CrossRef
  6. Roter D. The medical visit context of treatment decision-making and the therapeutic relationship. Health Expect. 2000;3: 17–25. | CrossRef
  7. Olejarczyk JP, Young M. Patient Rights and Ethics. 2024.
  8. Askitopoulou H, Vgontzas AN. The relevance of the Hippocratic Oath to the ethical and moral values of contemporary medicine. Part I: The Hippocratic Oath from antiquity to modern times. Eur Spine J. 2018;27: 1481–1490. | CrossRef
  9. Avila Hernández R. The Protomedico tribunal in New Spain, its administrative organization. Bol Soc Mex Hist Filos Med. 1987;10: 13–22.
  10. Grossman SA, Gurley KL, Wolfe RE. The Ethics of Error in Medicine. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2020;11. | CrossRef
  11. Khan S, Mohamed Dr. Impact of Medical Technology on Expansion in Healthcare Expenses. IJACSA. 2013;4. | CrossRef
  12. Iserson KV. Ethical principles--emergency medicine. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006;24: 513–45. | CrossRef
  13. Zabor EC, Kaizer AM, Hobbs BP. Randomized Controlled Trials. Chest. 2020;158: S79–S87. | CrossRef
  14. Ceelen WP. Clinical research in surgery: threats and opportunities. Eur Surg Res. 2014;53: 95–107. | CrossRef
  15. Unger CA, Barber MD. Studying surgical innovations: challenges of the randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22: 573–82. | CrossRef
  16. Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, Minter RM, Upperman J, Wilson M, et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: A position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206: 1204–9. | CrossRef
  17. Bothwell LE, Jones DS. Innovation and Tribulation in the History of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery. Ann Surg. 2021;274: e616–e624. | CrossRef
  18. Epstein RM, Duberstein PR, Fenton JJ, Fiscella K, Hoerger M, Tancredi DJ, et al. Effect of a Patient-Centered Communication Intervention on Oncologist-Patient Communication, Quality of Life, and Health Care Utilization in Advanced Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016. | CrossRef
  19. McGovern R, Harmon D. Patient response to physician expressions of uncertainty: a systematic review. Ir J Med Sci. 2017;186: 1061–1065. | CrossRef
  20. Roberts DJ, Zygun DA, Ball CG, Kirkpatrick AW, Faris PD, James MT, et al. Challenges and potential solutions to the evaluation, monitoring, and regulation of surgical innovations. BMC Surg. 2019;19. | CrossRef
  21. Polgar S, Mohamed S. Evidence-Based Evaluation of the Ethics of Sham Surgery for Parkinson’s Disease. J Parkinsons Dis. 2019;9: 565–574. | CrossRef
  22. Cohn S, Clinch M, Bunn C, Stronge P. Entangled complexity: why complex interventions are just not complicated enough. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18: 40–3. | CrossRef
  23. Niemansburg SL, van Delden JJM, Dhert WJA, Bredenoord AL. Reconsidering the ethics of sham interventions in an era of emerging technologies. Surgery. 2015;157: 801–10. | CrossRef
  24. Gaillard M, Tranchart H, Lainas P, Dagher I. New minimally invasive approaches for cholecystectomy: Review of literature. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7: 243–8. | CrossRef
  25. Department of Health E and W. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont Report Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81: 4–13.
  26. Cronin DC, Millis JM, Siegler M. Transplantation of liver grafts from living donors into adults--too much, too soon. N Engl J Med. 2001;344: 1633–7. | CrossRef
  27. Wu Chao Ying V, H. Kim SH, J. Khan K, Farrokhyar F, D’Souza J, Gmora S, et al. Prophylactic PPI help reduce marginal ulcers after gastric bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Surg Endosc. 2015;29: 1018–1023. | CrossRef
  28. Rattner D, Kalloo A, ASGE/SAGES Working Group. ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005. Surg Endosc. 2006;20: 329–33. | CrossRef
  29. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet. 2009;374: 1105–1112. | CrossRef
  30. . Morreim H, Mack MJ, Sade RM. Surgical Innovation: Too Risky to Remain Unregulated? Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82: 1957–1965. | CrossRef
  31. Neugebauer EAM, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben H-P, Fingerhut A, et al. EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24: 1594–615. | CrossRef
  32. Taylor PL. Overseeing Innovative Therapy without Mistaking it for Research: A Function-Based Model Based on Old Truths, New Capacities, and Lessons from Stem Cells. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38: 286–302. | CrossRef
  33. Tan VKM, Chow PKH. An approach to the ethical evaluation of innovative surgical procedures. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2011;40: 26–9.
  34. Bernstein M, Bampoe J. Surgical innovation or surgical evolution: an ethical and practical guide to handling novel neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg. 2004;100: 2–7. | CrossRef
  35. Lieberman I, Herndon J, Hahn J, Fins JJ, Rezai A. Surgical innovation and ethical dilemmas: A panel discussion. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75: S13–S21. | CrossRef
  36. QUALMS ABOUT INNOVATIVE SURGERY. The Lancet. 1985;325: 149. | CrossRef
  37. Gillett GR. Innovative treatments: ethical requirements for evaluation. J Clin Neurosci. 1998;5: 378–81. | CrossRef
  38. McKneally MF. The ethics of innovation: Columbus and others try something new. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141: 863–6. | CrossRef
  39. Burger I, Sugarman J, Goodman SN. Ethical issues in evidence-based surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2006;86: 151–68. | CrossRef
  40. Mastroianni AC. Liability, regulation and policy in surgical innovation: the cutting edge of research and therapy. Health Matrix Clevel. 2006;16: 351–442.
  41. Bowers N, Eisenberg E, Montbriand J, Jaskolka J, Roche-Nagle G. Using a multimedia presentation to improve patient understanding and satisfaction with informed consent for minimally invasive vascular procedures. Surg. 2017;15: 7–11. | CrossRef
  42. Shaul RZ, McDonald M, Langer JC. Facilitating innovation in the clinical setting: A pathway for operationalizing accountability. Healthc Q. 2009;12: 60–5. | CrossRef
  43. Vohora D. Ethical Considerations in Clinical Research. Pharm Med Transl Clin Res Elsevier. 2018; 265–283. | CrossRef
  44. Williams MA. Ethical Considerations in Hydrocephalus Research That Involves Children and Adults. 2012; 15–19. | CrossRef
  45. Pretz JL, Magnus D, Spain DA. Emergency Innovation: Implications for the Trauma Surgeon. J Trauma. 2009;67: 1443–1447. | CrossRef
  46. Burckhardt BB, Ciplea AM, Laven A, Ablonczy L, Klingmann I, Läer S, et al. Simulation Training to Improve Informed Consent and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Sampling in Pediatric Trials. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11. | CrossRef
  47. Johnson J, Rogers W. Innovative surgery: the ethical challenges. J Med Ethics. 2012;38: 9–12. | CrossRef
  48. Johnson J, Rogers W. Joint issues--conflicts of interest, the ASR hip and suggestions for managing surgical conflicts of interest. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15. | CrossRef