New Surgical Technology: Adoption or Diffusion? Essay

This article raised an interesting subject surgeons and patients seeking make betterd treatment often forget that a new proficiency is not necessarily a bankrupt one. Human body with its health problems remains the same but the functional applied science is always moving towards progress. People develop new working(a) tools and new surgical procedures constantly. However, do we painstakingly test tout ensemble these new tools and procedures before using them on people? And how? On human races? On animals first perhaps? Is it ethical? How do we know that new tools and procedures are better than the existing ones? Too many questionsNew surgical applied science promises improved patient care and, therefore, surgeons whitethorn hurry to adopt it despite little evidence or their advantage all over existing procedures. functional procedures that are later found to be ineffective waste resources and endanger lives. Anything new mustiness be carefully tested and proved in fac t to be better. Therefore, the key to this problem is a wide-awake and total understanding from the surgeons and the patients of why such new procedures tell apart to be offered as treatment. Lets look in detail how this new medical technology gets follow in the US. It may come in the course of* a drug* a device* a procedure* a technique* a process of careFor the surgical technology in particular, new things come in the form of a new procedure that uses existing devices or drugs, or an existing procedure that uses new devices. forwards adopting any new technology, people should seriously consider the following factors * Will this new technology improve the quality of clinical care? * If found successful, leave behind the inventor promote its rapid adoption? * How astray this new technology will be distributed?* Will it pass all known and potential barriers for adoption, (financing, marketing, etc.)? * Is it congenial with the existing technologies and operating rooms? From al l of these questions the main factor is always the same the new technology MUST improve the quality of clinical care for patients. If this precondition is not satisfied, the technology should be wedded even a logical and scientifically positive attitude is no substitute for proof in practice. There were cases where surgical technology that was quickly adopted without evidence of its relative benefit, was abandoned after careful examination. For example In 1964, Dr. Smith reported that injecting the enzyme chymopapain into an intervertebral disc relieved pain caused by herniation of the lumbar disc.In 1989, the American Medical Associations diagnostic and therapeutic technology assessment group questioned the effectiveness of the procedure and raised concerns about its safety. Their evaluation showed that, compared with placebo or no treatment, chymopapain was effective in only selected patients. In addition, when it was used by less experienced surgeons some patients had serious complications, including allergic response and even damage to the spinal cord. I feel positive about innovation in all fields especially when people can improve the quality of life by repairing and healing the human body. However, before adopting any new technology in the operating room, it should be offered to patients for a trial period. as well surgeons shall carefully watch and study this procedure being done numerous times, and if it can be support by the already existing equipment and the existing operating rooms.Do we ask the patient about the whatchamacallum or improvement by the new procedure or equipment? Of course He is the one on the operating table putting his life in the hands of the surgeon. Surgeons always like the new technology if it can be easily and quickly understood, and added to their existing practice without waste of time. If the input to their practice is great, surgeons will invest more time and effort and disregard disruption of their routine day to ex pand the agonistical advantage that a new technology offers. What I learned from this article is the use of new surgical technology has the potential to provide patients with the best possible care.On the other hand, if the new procedure or instrument were not carefully tested and approved, it ruined surgeons reputation, wasted resources, and caused harm to patients. Surgeons and institutions must not adopt a new technology without solid evidence of its efficiency and superiority over existing ones. In reality, quite a few innovations in medical technology were often adopted without enough evidence and testing and this was wrong. No matter how good the surgeons skill and powerfulness to perform a procedure, it is wrong, if the procedure should not be done in the first place and may potentially harm the patient.Source Article from BMJ British Medical Journal 2006 January 14 332(7533) 112-114. Editorial by Gabbay and Walley and pp 107, 109.Contributors and sources CBW is senior adv iser for the Health Technology Center and senior fellow at the Institute for the hereafter in California. -References McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002 324 1448-51. PMC free article PubMed.