Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

Area of Science:

• Surgical Science
• Medical Innovation Studies

Background:

• Improving surgical interventions is crucial for patient outcomes.
• Ensuring safe and transparent translation of surgical improvements is essential.
• Current evaluation frameworks (e.g., IDEAL, Macquarie Tool) lack a clear definition of innovation for non-surgeons.

Purpose of the Study:

• To conduct a conceptual study of surgical innovation.
• To identify common conceptual areas in discussions of surgical innovation.
• To propose an alternative approach to surgical evaluation and regulation.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual study of surgical innovation.
• Categorization of innovation concepts into five themes: purpose, place, process, product, and person.
• Analysis of the utility of these concepts for evaluation and regulation.

Main Results:

• Discussions of surgical innovation involve common conceptual areas (purpose, place, process, product, person).
• These concepts are used inconsistently and sometimes contradictorily.
• The term "innovation" has too much conceptual ambiguity for effective evaluation and regulation.

Conclusions:

• The term "innovation" should be eliminated from serious discourse on surgical evaluation and regulation.
• Focus should shift to developing robust definitions for specific surgical activities.
• Objective criteria are needed to identify risk profiles in surgical development for transparency and safety.