Cooperation Costs, Governance Choice and Alliance Evolution

While researchers in alliance management have identified the duality of cooperation and control within alliances, comparative governance scholars have not yet developed a coherent framework for relating the costs of cooperation to governance choices. This paper proposes a theory of cooperation costs highlighting the importance of joint task complexity, interpartner diversity, equity and strategic implications on the perception of alliance value and the formation and evolution of hybrid governance structures. A tolerance frontier is used to predict conditions for alliance failure both ex ante and after formation, as well as conditions under which an alliance will evolve once formed. The framework is illustrated through an analysis of the initial structuring and subsequent changes in the NedCar alliance between Mitsubishi Motors and Volvo, and implications for further research are discussed. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.Jeffrey S Barkun, Jeffrey K Aronson, Liane S Feldman, Guy J Maddern and Steven M Strasber

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies

The first international Delphi consensus statement on Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal surgery

Background: laparoscopic surgery has almost replaced open surgery in many areas of Gastro-Intestinal (GI) surgery. There is currently no published expert consensus statement on the principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. This may have affected the training of new surgeons. This exercise aimed to achieve an expert consensus on important principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. Methods: a committee of 38 international experts in laparoscopic GI surgery proposed and voted on 149 statements in two rounds following a strict modified Delphi protocol. Results: a consensus was achieved on 133 statements after two rounds of voting. All experts agreed on tailoring the first port site to the patient, whereas 84.2% advised avoiding the umbilical area for pneumoperitoneum in patients who had a prior midline laparotomy. Moreover, 86.8% agreed on closing all 15 mm ports irrespective of the patient's body mass index. There was a 100% consensus on using cartridges of appropriate height for stapling, checking the doughnuts after using circular staplers, and keeping the vibrating blade of the ultrasonic energy device in view and away from vascular structures. An 84.2% advised avoiding drain insertion through a ≥10 mm port site as it increases the risk of port-site hernia. There was 94.7% consensus on adding laparoscopic retrieval bags to the operating count and ensuring any surgical specimen left inside for later removal is added to the operating count. Conclusion: thirty-eight experts achieved a consensus on 133 statements concerning various aspects of laparoscopic GI Surgery. Increased awareness of these could facilitate training and improve patient outcomes.</p