A methodology for determining standard of care status for a new surgical procedure: Hand transplantation

Warren C Breidenbach, Edward A. Meister, Tolga Turker, Giles W. Becker, Vijay S. Gorantla, L. Scott Levin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Hand allotransplantation was initially criticized as unethical and unlikely to succeed. The results proved to be better than anticipated, now raising the issue of whether hand transplantation is the standard of care. The purpose of this article is to outline a reasonable methodology for determining whether a surgical procedure is the standard of care, and then to apply that methodology to hand transplantation. Methods: Publications on ethics and definitions of medical (not legal) standard of care were reviewed. All hand transplantations completed in the United States were evaluated regarding their status as experimental, standard of care, or both. Then, the stakeholders, physicians, public insurers, and regulators were examined to determine whether they accepted hand transplantation as the standard of care. Utility and incremental cost-utility ratio were determined. Hand transplantation was considered the standard of care when stakeholders were using, insuring, and regulating the procedure. Results: The public expresses a desire for hand transplantation. A minority of surgeons consider the procedure the standard of care. Ethical committees, institutional review boards, and scholarly articles deem the procedure ethical. A series of institutions have carried out the procedure with a record of successes. Some institutions perform the surgical procedure as the standard of care. Scholarly work demonstrates beneficial outcomes. Some commercial and federal government insurers are willing to cover the cost of the procedure. Utility determination justifies the procedure. There are no incremental cost-utility ratio analysis studies that justify the procedure. Conclusion: Hand transplantation is moving from acceptance as an ethical surgical experiment to the standard of care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)367-373
Number of pages7
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume137
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Hand Transplantation
Standard of Care
Insurance Carriers
Costs and Cost Analysis
Medical Ethics
Federal Government
Research Ethics Committees
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Publications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

A methodology for determining standard of care status for a new surgical procedure : Hand transplantation. / Breidenbach, Warren C; Meister, Edward A.; Turker, Tolga; Becker, Giles W.; Gorantla, Vijay S.; Levin, L. Scott.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 137, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 367-373.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Breidenbach, Warren C ; Meister, Edward A. ; Turker, Tolga ; Becker, Giles W. ; Gorantla, Vijay S. ; Levin, L. Scott. / A methodology for determining standard of care status for a new surgical procedure : Hand transplantation. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 137, No. 1. pp. 367-373.
@article{5d4d6f4a5f3f4593852b6a427d434b8d,
title = "A methodology for determining standard of care status for a new surgical procedure: Hand transplantation",
abstract = "Background: Hand allotransplantation was initially criticized as unethical and unlikely to succeed. The results proved to be better than anticipated, now raising the issue of whether hand transplantation is the standard of care. The purpose of this article is to outline a reasonable methodology for determining whether a surgical procedure is the standard of care, and then to apply that methodology to hand transplantation. Methods: Publications on ethics and definitions of medical (not legal) standard of care were reviewed. All hand transplantations completed in the United States were evaluated regarding their status as experimental, standard of care, or both. Then, the stakeholders, physicians, public insurers, and regulators were examined to determine whether they accepted hand transplantation as the standard of care. Utility and incremental cost-utility ratio were determined. Hand transplantation was considered the standard of care when stakeholders were using, insuring, and regulating the procedure. Results: The public expresses a desire for hand transplantation. A minority of surgeons consider the procedure the standard of care. Ethical committees, institutional review boards, and scholarly articles deem the procedure ethical. A series of institutions have carried out the procedure with a record of successes. Some institutions perform the surgical procedure as the standard of care. Scholarly work demonstrates beneficial outcomes. Some commercial and federal government insurers are willing to cover the cost of the procedure. Utility determination justifies the procedure. There are no incremental cost-utility ratio analysis studies that justify the procedure. Conclusion: Hand transplantation is moving from acceptance as an ethical surgical experiment to the standard of care.",
author = "Breidenbach, {Warren C} and Meister, {Edward A.} and Tolga Turker and Becker, {Giles W.} and Gorantla, {Vijay S.} and Levin, {L. Scott}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0000000000001892",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "137",
pages = "367--373",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A methodology for determining standard of care status for a new surgical procedure

T2 - Hand transplantation

AU - Breidenbach, Warren C

AU - Meister, Edward A.

AU - Turker, Tolga

AU - Becker, Giles W.

AU - Gorantla, Vijay S.

AU - Levin, L. Scott

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: Hand allotransplantation was initially criticized as unethical and unlikely to succeed. The results proved to be better than anticipated, now raising the issue of whether hand transplantation is the standard of care. The purpose of this article is to outline a reasonable methodology for determining whether a surgical procedure is the standard of care, and then to apply that methodology to hand transplantation. Methods: Publications on ethics and definitions of medical (not legal) standard of care were reviewed. All hand transplantations completed in the United States were evaluated regarding their status as experimental, standard of care, or both. Then, the stakeholders, physicians, public insurers, and regulators were examined to determine whether they accepted hand transplantation as the standard of care. Utility and incremental cost-utility ratio were determined. Hand transplantation was considered the standard of care when stakeholders were using, insuring, and regulating the procedure. Results: The public expresses a desire for hand transplantation. A minority of surgeons consider the procedure the standard of care. Ethical committees, institutional review boards, and scholarly articles deem the procedure ethical. A series of institutions have carried out the procedure with a record of successes. Some institutions perform the surgical procedure as the standard of care. Scholarly work demonstrates beneficial outcomes. Some commercial and federal government insurers are willing to cover the cost of the procedure. Utility determination justifies the procedure. There are no incremental cost-utility ratio analysis studies that justify the procedure. Conclusion: Hand transplantation is moving from acceptance as an ethical surgical experiment to the standard of care.

AB - Background: Hand allotransplantation was initially criticized as unethical and unlikely to succeed. The results proved to be better than anticipated, now raising the issue of whether hand transplantation is the standard of care. The purpose of this article is to outline a reasonable methodology for determining whether a surgical procedure is the standard of care, and then to apply that methodology to hand transplantation. Methods: Publications on ethics and definitions of medical (not legal) standard of care were reviewed. All hand transplantations completed in the United States were evaluated regarding their status as experimental, standard of care, or both. Then, the stakeholders, physicians, public insurers, and regulators were examined to determine whether they accepted hand transplantation as the standard of care. Utility and incremental cost-utility ratio were determined. Hand transplantation was considered the standard of care when stakeholders were using, insuring, and regulating the procedure. Results: The public expresses a desire for hand transplantation. A minority of surgeons consider the procedure the standard of care. Ethical committees, institutional review boards, and scholarly articles deem the procedure ethical. A series of institutions have carried out the procedure with a record of successes. Some institutions perform the surgical procedure as the standard of care. Scholarly work demonstrates beneficial outcomes. Some commercial and federal government insurers are willing to cover the cost of the procedure. Utility determination justifies the procedure. There are no incremental cost-utility ratio analysis studies that justify the procedure. Conclusion: Hand transplantation is moving from acceptance as an ethical surgical experiment to the standard of care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952684265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952684265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001892

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001892

M3 - Article

C2 - 26710038

AN - SCOPUS:84952684265

VL - 137

SP - 367

EP - 373

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 1

ER -