Search

Objective: To describe the field of surgical innovation from a historical perspective, applying new findings from research in technology innovation., Background: While surgical innovation has a rich tradition, as a field of study it is embryonic. Only a handful of academic centers of surgical innovation exist, all of which have arisen within the last 5 years. To this point, the field has not been well defined, nor have future options to promote surgical innovation been thoroughly explored. It is clear that surgical innovation is fundamental to surgical progress and has significant health policy implications. A process of systematically evaluating and promoting innovation in surgery may be critical in the evolving practice of medicine., Methods: A review of the academic literature in technology innovation was undertaken. Articles and books were identified through technical, medical, and business sources. Luminaries in surgical innovation were interviewed to develop further relevance to surgical history. The concepts in technology innovation were then applied to innovation in surgery, using the historical example of surgical endoscopy as a representative area, which encompasses millennia of learning and spans multiple specialties of care., Results: The history of surgery is comprised largely of individual, widely respected surgeon innovators. While respecting individual accomplishments, surgeons as a group have at times hindered critical innovation to the detriment of our profession and patients. As a clinical discipline, surgery relies on a tradition of research and attracting the brightest young minds. Innovation in surgery to date has been impressive, but inconsistently supported., Conclusion: A body of knowledge on technology innovation has been developed over the last decade but has largely not been applied to surgery. New surgical innovation centers are working to define the field and identify critical aspects of surgical innovation promotion. It is our responsibility as a profession to work to understand innovation in surgery, discover, translate, and commercialize advances to address major clinical problems, and to support the future of our profession consistently and rationally.

Current surgical care and technology has evolved over the centuries from the interplay between creative surgeons and new technologies. As both fields become more specialized, that interplay is threatened. A 2-year educational fellowship is described which teaches both the process and the discipline of medical/surgical device innovation. Multi-disciplinary teams (surgeons, engineers, business grads) are assembled to educate a generation of translators, who can bridge the gap between scientific and technologic advances and the needs of the physician and the patient.

Kraske's methodology was classic: develop the operation in the laboratory, try it initially on patients as a last resort and, if it works, expand its use to patients with less severe disease. His operation immediately gained acceptance and was popular for the next quarter of a century. It was subsequently modified by Hochenagg, Billroth and Rydygier. These men merely altered the amount or manner of sacral removal. The operation was largely abandoned after Miles (3) showed that the lymphatic spread from carcinoma of the rectum is toward the liver. Kraske's procedure, however, stands as a landmark in preantibiotic operations on the colon. Combined with abdominal exploration, this type of procedure can be used to preserve the anus in certain instances of carcinoma of the rectum today.