Five Minutes with . . . Stephen Westaby

Susan Mayor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j769

2017-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The pioneering heart surgeon and inventor explains why over-regulation of doctors is stifling innovation in improving outcomes among patients

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Doctors as Device Manufacturers? Regulation of Clinician-Generated Innovation in the ICU

David A Simon,Michael J Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006296

2024-12-01

Abstract:Critical care physicians are rich sources of innovation, developing new diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment tools they deploy in clinical practice, including novel software-based tools. Many of these tools are validated and promise to actively help patients, but physicians may be unlikely to distribute, implement, or share them with other centers noncommercially because of unsettled ethical, regulatory, or medicolegal concerns. This Viewpoint explores the potential barriers and risks critical care physicians face in disseminating device-related innovations for noncommercial purposes and proposes a framework for risk-based evaluation to foster clear pathways to safeguard equitable patient access and responsible implementation of clinician-generated technological innovations in critical care.
Heresy, Criticism, and Changes in Science

Yi Xin Zhang,Davide Lazzeri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31826d9e5b

2012-01-01

Abstract:Sir:FigureThere is nothing immutable, except the need to change. —Eraclito We read with great interest the editorial entitled “So You Want to Be a Change Artist?”1 published in the June issue of the Journal. Drs. Rohrich and Sullivan have touched on a topic of striking importance for the modern surgeon. The pursuit of stability of the human side faces with and somehow fights against the need for continuous innovation of the surgeon side. A balance of both aspects is suggested by both editors and nicely represented by the surfer metaphor: a modern and innovative surgeon needs to capitalize all knowledge and practice learned previously to face with a fearless approach new and uncertain challenges, taking lessons from his or her mistakes and adapting what he or she knows in a moment-by-moment continuum.1 Why do we have to change when we feel so familiar with a technique or with a procedure? Why do we have to spend time in changing continuously and approaching new challenges every day when we could work in our peaceable, routine way? Some lessons from history can help us in reaching the answer to both questions. Heresy, derived from the word Greek αι[Combining Diaeresis] ρεσις that should literally be translated as “choice,” has been used to define the selection of the type of life that a young person would have made among various philosophies. The Catholic Church later embraced it and exploited its meaning to indicate all beliefs and ideas that conflicted with established Catholic dogma. The accusation of heresy has been often used by the Church throughout history to preserve religious or traditional laws or codes from violations by scientific innovations. Nevertheless, by the late Middle Ages, the Church had increasingly interfered with surgical progress by forbidding members of the clergy (who were a prevalent portion of university-trained physicians) from the practice of surgery by means of a decree during the Fourth Lateran Council.2,3 The reason was that monks could not give Eucharist with their hands metaphorically “contaminated” by blood and body secretion; therefore, surgery was left largely to barber practitioners. It is within this context that the figure of Ambroise Paré emerged, a master in surgical techniques and an acclaimed anatomist and medical writer. His field of expertise was battlefield medicine—in particular, the treatment of wounds. Injured soldiers were treated with traditional boiling elderberry oil and cauterization to counteract the suspected “venomous nature” of wounds from gunshot. Paré introduced a medicament that was a mixture of egg yolk, oil of roses, and turpentine with unexpected improvement of the wounds compared with those of the soldiers treated with the boiling oil that were in agony.2,3 Although the excellent findings of Paré's new revolutionary treatment circulated widely through his writings defining the birth of modern surgery based on results and experimentation,2 inevitably he was harshly criticized for his revolutionary thinking by the physician and surgeon eminencies of university medicine of that time, who were too versed in the classics and Galen. In the same century, the Flemish physician Andries van Wesel (known as Andreas Vesalius), often referred to as the founder of modern human anatomy, published his pioneering work De Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human Body) that is arguably the best-known book produced in the history of Western medicine.3,4 He presented a careful examination and illustrations (made possible by progress in renaissance artistic paint and technique of printing) of the human body that disavowed almost all Galenic doctrine on anatomy that had been accepted and respected by the upper hierarchy of the university as a faith for over 1200 years, disclosing that all of Galen's anatomical findings were based on animal dissection rather than human dissection because of the banning of dissection in ancient Rome. The work of Vesalius was so revolutionary that he was not only ostracized and cursed by all his colleagues but also forced to burn all his unpublished works under the menace of accusation for heresy in challenging Galenism and Church doctrine.3,4 Vesalius's teachings were based on careful observation of details during dissection that were instantly reproduced by artists who were clearly present at the dissections themselves. This allowed the production of anatomically accurate textbooks, and the extent to which he let medical students participate in dissection lectures revolutionized medicine. Three centuries later, the Hungarian physician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered that hand disinfection in obstetric clinics could decrease the number of deaths related to puerperal fever. In that time, it was a habit for both doctors and medical students to pass freely from dissection theaters to examination of new mothers without first scrubbing their hands, with the consequence being infecting the patient and causing her death by puerperal fever. Through a comparative investigation supported by strong statistical analysis, Semmelweis identified the problem and compelled his colleagues to a rigorous hand-washing in the maternity ward to prevent the transmission of puerperal fever, reducing mortality dramatically. Despite the evidence reported in various publications, Semmelweis's conclusions conflicted with the established scientific and medical doctrine of the time, and his studies were overtly refused and criticized by the medical community that believed that maternal infections were caused by “poison air” in a hospital ward. Furthermore, physicians were offended by the idea that they were the vehicle of infection by means of their hands. Unfortunately, Semmelweis was committed to and died in an insane asylum. Widely accepted scientific explanations for his theories were proposed years after his death, thanks to the discoveries of Louis Pasteur on germs.[5] We reported three innovations from three great physicians that we still use in our everyday practice and that should be a lesson for modern surgeons. However, we could have reported on many other scientists who have contributed to the evolution of medicine into the modern science it is today. Medicine and surgery could not have developed without the changes made by scientists who wanted to go beyond common and stable dogmatic knowledge. Advancement and development have required revolutionary changes based on observation rather than blind adherence to dictum and more likely require, in modern times, evidence-based results to obtain acceptance over long-established doctrines. We agree with the suggestion by Rohrich and Sullivan to embrace changes for advancement of our specialty and use failures as teachable lessons.1 Niccolò Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” Yi Xin Zhang, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China Davide Lazzeri, M.D. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
Five historical innovations that have shaped modern cardiothoracic surgery

Elizabeth Mainwaring,Ravi Patel,Chaitya Desai,Radhika Acharya,Dimit Raveshia,Saumil Shah,Harrypal Panesar,Neil Patel,Rohit Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589231212967

Abstract:Throughout history, many innovations have contributed to the development of modern cardiothoracic surgery, improving patient outcomes and expanding the range of treatment options available to patients. This article explores five key historical innovations that have shaped modern cardiothoracic surgery: cardiopulmonary bypass, surgical pacemakers, video assisted thoracic surgery, robotic surgery and mechanical circulatory support. We will review the development, impact and significance of each innovation, highlighting their contributions to the field of cardiothoracic surgery and their ongoing relevance in contemporary and perioperative practice.
The ventilator of the future: key principles and unmet needs

John J. Marini,Luciano Gattinoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05060-5

IF: 15.1

2024-09-03

Critical Care

Abstract:Persistent shortcomings of invasive positive pressure ventilation make it less than an ideal intervention. Over the course of more than seven decades, clinical experience and scientific investigation have helped define its range of hazards and limitations. Apart from compromised airway clearance and lower airway contamination imposed by endotracheal intubation, the primary hazards inherent to positive pressure ventilation may be considered in three broad categories: hemodynamic impairment, potential for ventilation-induced lung injury, and impairment of the respiratory muscle pump. To optimize care delivery, it is crucial for monitoring and machine outputs to integrate information with the potential to impact the underlying requirements of the patient and/or responses of the cardiopulmonary system to ventilatory interventions. Trending analysis, timely interventions, and closer communication with the caregiver would limit adverse clinical trajectories. Judging from the rapid progress of recent years, we are encouraged to think that insights from physiologic research and emerging technological capability may eventually address important aspects of current deficiencies.

critical care medicine
Innovation and disruptive science determine the future of cardiothoracic surgery

Friedhelm Beyersdorf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae022

IF: 4.534

2024-01-18

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:Summary One of the currently most asked questions in the field of medicine is how any specialty in the future will evolve to ensure better health for the patients by using current, unparalleled developments in all areas of science. This article will give an overview of new and evolving strategies for cardiothoracic (CT) surgery that are available today and will become available in the future in order to achieve this goal. In the founding era of CT surgery in the 1950s and 1960s, there was tremendous excitement about innovation and disruptive science, which eventually resulted in a completely new medical specialty, i.e. CT surgery. Entirely new treatment strategies were introduced for many cardiovascular diseases that had been considered incurable until then. As expected, alternative techniques have evolved in all fields of science during the last few decades, allowing great improvements in diagnostics and treatment in all medical specialties. The future of CT surgery will be determined by an unrestricted and unconditional investment in innovation, disruptive science and our own transformation using current achievements from many other fields. From the multitude of current and future possibilities, I will highlight 4 in this review: improvements in our current techniques, bringing CT surgery to low- and middle-income countries, revolutionizing the perioperative period and treating as yet untreatable diseases. These developments will allow us a continuation of the previously unheard-of treatment possibilities provided by ingenious innovations based on the fundamentals of CT surgery.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Evaluating innovation. Part 2: Development in neurosurgery

Zane Schnurman,Douglas Kondziolka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.JNS142664

Abstract:OBJECT Patients, practitioners, payers, and regulators are advocating for reform in how medical advances are evaluated. Because surgery does not adhere to a standardized developmental pathway, how the medical community accepts a procedure remains unclear. The authors developed a new model, using publication data and patterns, that quantifies this process. Using this technique, the authors identified common archetypes and influences on neurosurgical progress from idea inception to acceptance. METHODS Seven neurosurgical procedures developed in the past 15-25 years were used as developmental case studies (endovascular coil, deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-l-nitrosourea wafer, and 3 radiosurgery procedures), and the literature on each topic was evaluated. A new metric the authors termed "progressive scholarly acceptance" (PSA) was used as an end point for community acceptance. PSA was reached when the number of investigations that refine or improve a procedure eclipsed the total number of reports assessing initial efficacy. Report characteristics, including the number of patients studied, study design, and number of authoring groups from the first report to the point of PSA, were assessed. RESULTS Publication data implicated factors that had an outsized influence on acceptance. First, procedural accessibility to investigators was found to influence the number of reports, number of patients studied, and number of authoring groups contributing. Barriers to accessibility included target disease rarity, regulatory restrictions, and cost. Second, the ease or difficulty in applying a randomized controlled trial had an impact on study design. Based on these 2 factors, 3 developmental archetypes were characterized to generally describe the development of surgery. CONCLUSIONS Common surgical development archetypes can be described based on factors that impact investigative methods, data accumulation, and ultimate acceptance by society. The approach and proposed terminologies in this report could inform future procedural development as well as any attempts to regulate surgical innovation.
Surgeons produce innovative ideas which are frequently lost in the labyrinth of patents

Joshua A Vecht,Thanos Athanasiou,Hutan Ashrafian,Erik Mayer,Ara Darzi,Ludwig Karl von Segesser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.11.025

Abstract:Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery are innovative specialties that regularly recruit the latest technological developments into their armoury of devices and equipment. The introduction of new technology is dependant on patents; an important but single component of intellectual property. Patents enable the attribution of rights to concepts, ideas and inventions and this facilitates ownership, subsequent licensing and overall management of innovation and its outcome. It is not just thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, but the healthcare world in general that experiences ongoing technological evolution; so to remain contemporary, it is important that those in positions of responsibility are familiar with the relevant processes. This requires basic medico-legal knowledge and may be entwined with significant financial responsibility. Penetrating clinical, academic and industrial environments, informed awareness of patents also contributes to important leadership skills, encouraging the incorporation of innovation into the professional milieu. We aim to present through this manuscript an overview of these issues in order to promote awareness of patents within thoracic and cardiovascular surgery using a descriptive and practical approach.
Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

Daniela P Ladner,Allan M Goldstein,Timothy R Billiar,Andrew M Cameron,Darren R Carpizo,Daniel I Chu,Craig M Coopersmith,Ronald P DeMatteo,Sandy Feng,Katherine A Gallagher,William E Gillanders,Brajesh K Lal,Gerald S Lipshutz,Annie Liu,Ronald V Maier,Elizabeth A Mittendorf,Arden M Morris,Jason K Sicklick,Omaida C Velazquez,Bryan A Whitson,Lee G Wilke,Sam S Yoon,Martha A Zeiger,Diana L Farmer,E Shelley Hwang,ASA Task Force for Research Sustainability

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006148

2024-02-01

Abstract:Objective: To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists. Background: Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice. Methods: An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies. Results: Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations. Conclusions: Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science.
From Catheters To Ventricular Assist Devices: 60 Years of Cardiovascular Experiences With William L. Winters, JR., M.D.

W. L. Winters

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14797/mdcj-11-3s1-1

2015-09-10

Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal

Abstract:Automatic typewriters, transistor radios, microfiche, black and white television…while considered high-tech in the 1950s, these technologies seem limited when viewed from the 21st century. The same is true for cardiovascular medicine, which back then relied on electrocardiograms and X-rays for most diagnoses. In the 60 years since, advances in medical capabilities have progressed at a staggering pace. Patient research that once required months poring over paper charts is now reduced to hours using electronic medical record databases. Diagnostic images that once took days to process can now be accessed instantly through ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. While a half-century ago no one would have imagined accessing any and all information with a 5-second Google search, so too would noninvasive heart surgery been considered unimaginable. Since the 1950s when he graduated from medical school, William L. Winters, Jr., has been a first-hand witness to breathtaking innovations in cardiovascular medicine-both globally and in Houston. Author of Houston Hearts: A History of Cardiovascular Surgery and Medicine at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center and long-time medical editor of the Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, Dr. Winters sat down with the journal editors this past April to share his insights from the last half-century of medical practice.
Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table

Stephan Windecker,Martine Gilard,Stephan Achenbach,Alain Cribier,Victoria Delgado,Nataliya Deych,Inga Drossart,Hélène Eltchaninoff,Alan G Fraser,Alexandra Goncalves,Gerhard Hindricks,Richard Holborow,Arie Pieter Kappetein,John Kilmartin,Jana Kurucova,Thomas F Lüscher,Roxana Mehran,Donal B O’Connor,Mark Perkins,Eigil Samset,Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben,Franz Weidinger,Donal B O'Connor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae069

IF: 39.3

2024-02-19

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Research performed in Europe has driven cardiovascular device innovation. This includes, but is not limited to, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac imaging, transcatheter heart valve implantation, and device therapy of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. An important part of future medical progress involves the evolution of medical technology and the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and machine learning. There is a need to foster an environment conducive to medical technology development and validation so that Europe can continue to play a major role in device innovation while providing high standards of safety. This paper summarizes viewpoints on the topic of device innovation in cardiovascular medicine at the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table, a strategic forum for high-level dialogue to discuss issues related to the future of cardiovascular health in Europe. Devices are developed and improved through an iterative process throughout their lifecycle. Early feasibility studies demonstrate proof of concept and help to optimize the design of a device. If successful, this should ideally be followed by randomized clinical trials comparing novel devices vs. accepted standards of care when available and the collection of post-market real-world evidence through registries. Unfortunately, standardized procedures for feasibility studies across various device categories have not yet been implemented in Europe. Cardiovascular imaging can be used to diagnose and characterize patients for interventions to improve procedural results and to monitor devices long term after implantation. Randomized clinical trials often use cardiac imaging-based inclusion criteria, while less frequently trials randomize patients to compare the diagnostic or prognostic value of different modalities. Applications using machine learning are increasingly important, but specific regulatory standards and pathways remain in development in both Europe and the USA. Standards are also needed for smart devices and digital technologies that support device-driven biomonitoring. Changes in device regulation introduced by the European Union aim to improve clinical evidence, transparency, and safety, but they may impact the speed of innovation, access, and availability. Device development programmes including dialogue on unmet needs and advice on study designs must be driven by a community of physicians, trialists, patients, regulators, payers, and industry to ensure that patients have access to innovative care.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Barriers, regulations and solutions in emergency surgery research

T. J. Coats,T J Coats

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9327

2013-11-25

Abstract:Time for the surgical community to embrace research in this area

surgery
Multidisciplinary Endeavors Make Future Medicine Smart

Luoran Shang,Yihai Cao,David A Weitz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smmd.20220031

2022-01-01

Smart Medicine

Abstract:Humans suffer from thousands of diseases, and many of them lack effective methods for diagnosis and treatment. To address these unmet medical needs, basic research in multiple areas can provide important clinical contributions. The breathtaking discoveries in fundamental life sciences not only enhance our understanding of the human body but also lead to the creation of new diagnostics and pharmaceuticals. Innovations in medically relevant technologies, drawing on a wide range of disciplines, bring hope to previously intractable illnesses. All these lead to the dramatic transformation of medicine toward “Smart Medicine.” We foresee the future of medicine to be nourished with cutting-edge ideas from many different fields. We also anticipate specially designed methods that help translate these ideas and make them fit for specific healthcare purposes. The launching of Smart Medicine is rooted in the idea that there is an urgent need for a journal that embraces all medically relevant research. Smart Medicine is copublished by Wiley and the Wenzhou Institute of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (WIUCAS, China). It aims to foster communications among and joint efforts by multiple science and engineering communities, thus sparking new ideas in the medical arena. Smart Medicine is overseen by a world-class editorial group with members from different research backgrounds. We proudly introduce our Editors-in-Chief professors, Prof. Yihai Cao (Karolinska Institute, Sweden) and Prof. David A. Weitz (Harvard University, USA), our Executive Editors, Prof. Wenguo Cui (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China), Prof. Hongbo Zhang (Åbo Akademi University, Finland), and Prof. Yuanjin Zhao (Southeast University, China), our Associate Editors, Prof. Fangfu Ye (WIUCAS, China), Prof. Cecilia Sahlgren (Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands), Prof. Kenneth L. Pitter (Ohio State University, USA), and Prof. Sergey Filippov (University of Reading, UK), and 28 Editorial Board members coming from 16 countries or regions. We would also like to thank the full support from the professional publishing team of Wiley, Dr. José Oliveira, Dr. Guangchen Xu, Dr. Jing Zhu, Dr. Xiaoyu Zhang, and Ms. Kelsey Ma. In this inaugural issue of Smart Medicine, we have collected 4 research articles, 1 minireview, and 7 review papers focusing on different aspects of basic, clinical, and translational medicine. The original studies include that led by Prof. Haozhen Ren (Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, China) on liver lobule-mimicking scaffolds for tissue engineering, Prof. Fangfu Ye on structural color films for biosensing, Prof. Qingming Ma (Qingdao University, China) on bacterial infection microenvironment-responsive microspheres for anti-infective therapy, and Prof. Hongbo Zhang on reregulated mitochondrial dysfunction reversing cisplatin resistance microenvironment in colorectal cancer. The single minireview contributed by Prof. Feili Lai's group (KU Leuven, Belgium) focuses on personalized healthcare. Additionally, we have invited Prof. Yuanjin Zhao, Prof. Veijo Hukkanen (University of Turku, Finland), Prof. Wenguo Cui, Prof. Renjie Chai (Southeast University, China), Dr. Lei Tian (McMaster University, Canada), Prof. David A. Posner (University of Cambridge, UK), and Prof. Luoran Shang (Fudan University, China) to contribute authoritative reviews on several thriving medically relevant technologies and engineering topics, including microfluidics, drug development, reprogramming stem cells, functional hydrogels, living materials, combination therapies, and biomimetics. We hope this inaugural issue will help readers appreciate the multidisciplinary principles, broad scope, and high-quality standards of Smart Medicine. We also hope that our readers will consider Smart Medicine as among the most preferred journals in which to share exciting research results and forward-looking viewpoints. The future of medicine has come; let us explore a huge world of new possibilities with Smart Medicine. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Luoran Shang, Yihai Cao, and David A. Weitz are members of the Smart Medicine editorial board. Yihai Cao is a professor of vascular biology at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. He is a member of Chinese Academy of Engineering, Academy of Europe, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, National Academy of Inventors (US), and American Institute of Medicine and Biological Engineering. Yihai Cao received his medical training from the Shandong Medical School and his Ph.D. from the Karolinska Institute. He received his postdoctoral training in Dr. Judah Folkman’s laboratory at the Harvard Medical School. Cao’s laboratory has focused their interests on studying angiogenesis in tumor growth, metastasis, and non-malignant diseases. David A. Weitz received his PhD in physics from Harvard University and then joined Exxon Research and Engineering Company, where he worked for nearly 18 years. He then became a professor of physics at the University of Pennsylvania and moved to Harvard at the end of the last millennium as professor of physics and applied physics. He leads a group studying soft matter science with a focus on materials science, biophysics and microfluidics. Several startup companies have spun off his lab to commercialize research concepts in the US, as well as in Europe and China. Weitz is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering.
Robotic endovascular surgery: current and future practice

Lucinda Cruddas,Guy Martin,Celia Riga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2021.10.002

Abstract:Minimally invasive techniques have been at the forefront of surgical progress, and the evolution of endovascular robotic technologies has seen a paradigm shift in the focus of future innovation. Endovascular robotic technology may help overcome many of the challenges associated with traditional endovascular techniques by enabling greater control, stability, and precision of target navigation and treatment, while simultaneously reducing operator learning curves and improving safety. Several robotic systems have been developed to perform a broad range of endovascular procedures, but none have been used at scale or widely in routine practice, and the evidence for their safety, effectiveness, and efficiency remains limited. High cost and device complexity, lack of haptic feedback, and limited integration and interoperability with existing equipment and devices are the principal technology, cost, and sustainability barriers to the scalability and widespread adoption in day-to-day practice. In order to fully realize its potential, future robotic innovation must ensure compatibility with a range of off-the-shelf equipment that can be tracked and exchanged quickly during a procedure and come together with developments in navigation, tracking, and imaging. Reducing cost and complexity and supporting sustainability of the technology is key. In parallel, new technologies must be evaluated by clear and transparent standardized outcomes and be accompanied by robust clinical training. Key to the successful future development and dissemination of robotic technology is open collaboration among industry, clinicians, and patients in order to fully understand and address current challenges and enable the technology to realize its full potential.
How to advance from minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting to totally endoscopic coronary bypass grafting: challenges in Europe versus United States of America

Michiel Algoet,Tom Melvin,Stepan Cerny,Johannes Bonatti,Sandeep Singh,Thierry Folliguet,Paul Modi,Ulrich Franke,Monica Gianoli,Alfonso Agnino,Filip Casselman,Wouter Oosterlinck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-rcabg-0210

2024-09-29

Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Abstract:Robotic coronary and intra-cardiac surgery has been available for more than 25 years. In this period, multiple studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of robotic surgery over conventional open surgery. Throughout the years, technical developments have enabled us to perform totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) grafting. But these techniques remained in the hands of a small group of pioneers because of a lack of structured training programs and the absence of long-term results at that time. Currently, a renewed interest and a wide dispersion of robotic platforms, thanks to use of robotics in other disciplines, has led to an exponential increase in robotic cardiac centers both in Europe and USA. Nonetheless, this increase was slowed down in Europe as a result of the uncertainty introduced by the implementation of a revised regulatory framework for medical devices [Regulation 2017/745, 'Medical Device Regulation' ('MDR')]. The MDR was introduced with the goal of increasing patient safety and supporting innovation. Implementing the MDR has proven to be exceptionally challenging and risks to the supply of essential devices have been identified. Changes to both regulatory and market dynamics led to a circumstance where the only available robotic platform for cardiac surgery decided to cease marketing of essential accessories for conducting surgery. This resulted in the disappearance of dedicated tools such as the Endowrist stabilizer, essential for TECAB, and the atrial retractor which is essential for intra-cardiac surgery. In the mean-time, further clinical evidence was published demonstrating the superiority of robotic cardiac surgery over other minimally invasive approaches. This has demonstrated the need to better define the clinical evidence requirements for regulatory purposes to ensure that dedicated tools for evidence-based interventions in robotic coronary surgery remain available such that TECAB can continue in Europe.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Surgeon-Scientists Going Extinct: Last Call for Action or Too Late?

Matthias Pfister,Zhihao Li,Florian Huwyler,Mark W. Tibbitt,Milo A Puhan,Pierre-Alain Clavien,the Research Sustainability Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006486

IF: 13.787

2024-10-05

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:To define the concept of surgeon-scientists and identify the root causes of their decline in number and impact. The secondary aim was to provide actionable remedies.

surgery
Why Medicine is Overweight

Christopher Martyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2800

2010-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Is it really admirable that doctors investigate more rather than less, and intervene with treatment early rather than late?
Heart valve disease: a journey of discovery

Laura Elizabeth Dobson,Bernard D Prendergast,Dobson,L. E.,Prendergast,B. D.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320146

IF: 5.7

2022-04-22

Heart

Abstract:In the centenary year of the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS), this review article outlines the influence of UK cardiologists and surgeons on the field of heart valve disease, many of whom can rightly claim 'world firsts' in the field. From the description of endocarditis as we know it today at the turn of the 20th century, to the first mitral valvotomy, heart valve replacement and invention of the Ross procedure. These advances have transformed the outlook of patients with symptomatic valve disease from palliation and certain death to curative treatment and near normal life expectancy. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was adopted early in the UK, and thanks to the comprehensive national database, the UK TAVI registry is one of the world's largest, contributing real-world patient data to inform clinical practice. The more recent concepts of 'Heart Valve Centres of Excellence' and specialist valve clinics have been developed by the BCS-affiliated British Heart Valve Society which continues to drive improved standards for patients with heart valve disease. The next 100 years will no doubt be equally thrilling in terms of innovation for heart valve disease, with artificial intelligence, transcatheter therapies and cutting-edge technology continuing to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Pulmonary artery pressure-guided heart failure care: the setting matters

Stefan Störk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae441

IF: 39.3

2024-07-20

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Components and processes that may affect the decision-making of health authorities when innovative technologies are to be integrated into a clinical or healthcare setting.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Dr. David Coston Sabiston: A Stalwart of Surgical Training and Innovations

Himanshu Agrawal,Nikhil Gupta,Himanshu Tanwar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-024-04104-y

2024-06-25

Indian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Dr. David Coston Sabiston is a pioneer surgeon and an innovator in cardio-thoracic surgery. An image of excellence among surgical trainees across the globe. As chairman of the department of surgery at Duke University, he was reputedly one of the greatest surgeons who ever lived. In 1962, he grafted a vein from a patient's leg to feed blood past a blocked coronary artery, very first coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and promptly known as a moderniser of cardiac surgery. He was the president of all the principal surgical societies in America.

surgery
Ethics of Pediatric Surgical Innovation: Considerations, Controversies, and Pitfalls

Katherine Brooke Snyder,Ryan Austin Stewart,Catherine J Hunter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/730873

Abstract:AbstractThe field of surgery has relied on innovation and creativity to improve patient care and propel the field forward. Historically, regulatory oversight of innovative approaches to surgery has been largely inconsistent, rendering surgeons relatively unrestricted creative latitude in the operating room; whether this has proven to be more beneficial or harmful is subject to debate. While innovation plays a crucial role in the advancement of surgical techniques, the potential drawbacks of unregulated innovation must be seriously considered, especially when treating vulnerable populations such as infants and children. This article provides an overview of the ethical aspects surrounding innovation in pediatric surgery, including discussion of relevant considerations, controversies, and pitfalls. The following includes a review of the current and past literature surrounding the topic. The purpose of this review is to heighten awareness of the ethical challenges that surgeons face when considering novel operative techniques on pediatric patients.

Five Minutes with . . . Stephen Westaby

Doctors as Device Manufacturers? Regulation of Clinician-Generated Innovation in the ICU

Heresy, Criticism, and Changes in Science

Five historical innovations that have shaped modern cardiothoracic surgery

The ventilator of the future: key principles and unmet needs

Innovation and disruptive science determine the future of cardiothoracic surgery

Evaluating innovation. Part 2: Development in neurosurgery

Surgeons produce innovative ideas which are frequently lost in the labyrinth of patents

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

From Catheters To Ventricular Assist Devices: 60 Years of Cardiovascular Experiences With William L. Winters, JR., M.D.

Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table

Barriers, regulations and solutions in emergency surgery research

Multidisciplinary Endeavors Make Future Medicine Smart

Robotic endovascular surgery: current and future practice

How to advance from minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting to totally endoscopic coronary bypass grafting: challenges in Europe versus United States of America

Surgeon-Scientists Going Extinct: Last Call for Action or Too Late?

Why Medicine is Overweight

Heart valve disease: a journey of discovery

Pulmonary artery pressure-guided heart failure care: the setting matters

Dr. David Coston Sabiston: A Stalwart of Surgical Training and Innovations

Ethics of Pediatric Surgical Innovation: Considerations, Controversies, and Pitfalls