Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Nov;244(5):686-93.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000242706.91771.ce.

Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective

Affiliations
Review

Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective

Daniel J Riskin et al. Ann Surg. 2006 Nov.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
FIGURE 1. Broad categories of innovation.
None
FIGURE 2. Graphic representation of disruptive versus sustaining technology change.
None
FIGURE 3. Graphic representation of expanding versus refining innovation period.

References

    1. Utterback JM. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
    1. Christensen CM. The Innovator’s Dilemma. New York: HarperCollins, 1997:15–16.
    1. Roberts EB. Innovation: Driving Product, Process, and Market Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
    1. Cosgrove DM. The innovation imperative. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:839–842. - PubMed
    1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin, 2004.