Consentimiento informado para la cirugía innovadora

1. S.M. Strasberg, P.A. Ludbrook. Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg, 196 (2003), pp. 938–948.
2. The EC/IC Bypass Study Group. Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke: results of an international randomized trial. N Engl J Med, 313 (1985), pp. 1191–1200.
3. I. Burger, J. Sugarman, S.N. Goodman. Ethical issues in evidence-based surgery. Surg Clin North Am, 86 (2006), pp. 151–168 x
4. J.B. Moseley, K. O’Malley, N.J. Petersen, T.J. Menke, B.A. Brody, D.H. Kuykendall et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med, 347 (2002), pp. 81–88.
5. U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Belmont Report. Federal Register, 44 (1979), pp. 23191–23917.
6. A.C. Mastroianni, R.L. Jansson. The legal treatment of surgical innovation. A.M. Reitsma, J.D. Moreno (Eds.), Ethical guidelines for innovative surgery, University Publishing Group, Hagerstown, MD (2006), pp. 93–116.
7. A.C. Mastroianni. Liability, regulation and policy in surgical innovation: the cutting edge of research and therapy. Health Matrix Clevel, 16 (2006), pp. 351–442.
8. Osburn v Danek Medical, Inc., 520 S.E.2d 88 (N.C. Ct. App.1999).
9. American College of Surgeons Committee on Emerging Surgical Technology and Education. ST-18 Statement on emerging surgical technologies and the evaluation of credentials. 1994. Available from: http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-18.html.
10. American College of Surgeons Committee on Emerging Surgical Technology and Education. ST-23 Statement on issues to be considered before new surgical technology is applied to the care of patients. 1995. Available at: http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-23.html.
11. American College of Surgeons Committee on Emerging Surgical Technology and Education. ST-30 Verification by the American College of Surgeons for the use of emerging technologies. 1998. Available at: http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-30.html.
12. W.L. Biffl, D.A. Spain, A.M. Reitsma, R.M. Minter, J. Upperman, M. Wilson et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg, 206 (2008), pp. 1204–1209.
13. A.M. Reitsma, J.D. Moreno. Ethics guidelines for innovative surgery: Recommendations for national policy. A.M. Reitsma, J.D. Moreno (Eds.), Ethical guidelines for innovative surgery, University Publishing Group, Hagerstown, MD (2006), pp. 199–212
14. T.V. Perneger. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ, 316 (1998), pp. 1236–1238.
15. P. Bacchetti. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ, 324 (2002), pp. 1271–1273.
16. Estrada v Jaques, 321 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
17. I. Burger, K. Schill, S. Goodman. Disclosure of individual surgeon’s performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann Surg, 245 (2007), pp. 507–513.
18. M.N. Marshall, P.G. Shekelle, S. Leatherman, R.H. Brook. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA, 283 (2000), pp. 1866–1874.
19. E.C. Schneider, A.M. Epstein. Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. JAMA, 279 (1998), pp. 1638–1642.
20. M.L. Schwarze. The process of informed consent: neither the time nor the place for disclosure of surgeon-specific outcomes. Ann Surg, 245 (2007), pp. 514–515.
21. Johnson v Kokemoor, 545 N.W.2d 495 (Wis. 1996).
22. Whiteside v Lukson, 947 P.2d 1263 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
23. Barriocanal vs Gibbs, 697 A.2d 1169 (Del. 1997).
24. S.G. Rado. A patient’s right to know: a case for mandating disclosure of physician success rate as an element of informed consent. Health Matrix Clevel, 18 (2008), pp. 501–530.
25. L. Noah. Informed consent and the elusive dichotomy between standard and experimental therapy. Am J Law Med, 28 (2002), pp. 361–408.
26. B. Lo. Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians. (4th ed.)Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2009).
27. 61 Am Jur 2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers §178 (2010).
28. M.J. Courtney. Information about surgery: what does the public want to know?. ANZ J Surg, 71 (2001), pp. 24–26.
29. M.J. Elder, A. Suter. What patients want to know before they have cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol, 88 (2004), pp. 331–332.
30. E.B. Braaten, M.M. Handelsman. Client preferences for informed consent information. Ethics Behav, 7 (1997), pp. 311–328.
31. H. Waitzkin. Doctor-patient communication. Clinical implications of social scientific research. JAMA, 252 (1984), pp. 2441–2446.
32. H. El-Wakeel, G.J. Taylor, J.J. Tate. What do patients really want to know in an informed consent procedure? A questionnaire-based survey of patients in the Bath area, UK. J Med Ethics, 32 (2006), pp. 612–616.
33. N.B. Janssen, F.J. Oort, P. Fockens, D.L. Willems, H.C. de Haes, E.M. Smets. Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study. J Med Ethics, 35 (2009), pp. 276–282.
34. P.J. Dawes, P. Davison. Informed consent: what do patients want to know?. J R Soc Med, 87 (1994), pp. 149–152.
35. J.E. Losanoff, K.M. Litwinczuk, M.J. Ranella, M.D. Basson. Elective inguinal hernia repair: a unified informed consent, or who wants to know what? Am Surg, 75 (2009), pp. 296–300