Martin, E., Muskens, I. S., Senders, J. T., et al. Randomized controlled trials comparing surgery to non-operative management in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019; 161: 627–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Zaki, M. M., Cote, D. J., Muskens, I. S., et al. Defining innovation in neurosurgery: results from an international survey. World Neurosurg. 2018; 114: e1038–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Broekman, M. L., Carriere, M. E., Bredenoord, A. L. Surgical innovation: the ethical agenda: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95: e3790.Google Scholar

Gupta, S., Muskens, I. S., Fandino, L. B. et al. Oversight in surgical innovation: a response to ethical challenges. World J. Surg. 2018; 42: 2773–80.Google Scholar

DiRisio, A. C., Muskens, I. S., Cote, D. J., et al. Oversight and ethical regulation of conflicts of interest in neurosurgery in the United States. Neurosurgery 2019; 84: 305–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ammirati, M., Lai, W., Ciric, I. Short term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2013; 84: 843–49.Google Scholar

Bernards, R. When a conflict of interest is not a conflict. Nature 2019; 568: 458.Google Scholar

Muskens, I. S., Gupta, S., Hulsbergen, A., et al. Introduction of novel medical devices in surgery: ethical challenges of current oversight and regulation. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2017; 225: 558–65.Google Scholar

Cooper, D. J., Nichol, A. D., Bailey, M., et al. POLAR trial investigators and the ANZICS clinical trials group. Effect of early sustained prophylactic hypothermia on neurologic outcomes among patients with severe traumatic brain injury: the POLAR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 320: 2211–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muskens, I. S., Diederen, S. J. H., Senders, J. T., et al. Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2017; 159: 1957–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Evans, M. J., Kaufman, M. H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 1981; 292: 154–6.Google Scholar

Thomson, J. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S. S., et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998; 282: 1145–7.Google Scholar

Mendez-Ferrer, S., Scadden, D. T., Sanchez-Aguilera, A. Bone marrow stem cells: current and emerging concepts. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2015; 1335: 32–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Takahashi, K., Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006; 126: 663–76.Google Scholar

International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic stem cell research. 2006. Available at: www.isscr.org/docs/default-source/hesc-guidelines/isscrhescguidelines2006.pdf.Google Scholar

International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells. 2008. Available at: www.isscr.docs/default-source/clin-trans-guidelines/isscrglclinicaltrans.pdf.Google Scholar

International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation. 2016. Available at: www.isscr.org/guidelines2016.Google Scholar

ESHRE Taskforce on ethics and law. The moral status of the pre-implantation embryo. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 17: 1409–19.Google Scholar

Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Donating embryos for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research: a committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 100: 935–9.Google Scholar

Department of Health, and Education and Welfare. Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (The Belmont Report). Fed. Reg. 1979; 23: 192.Google Scholar

Berkowitz, A. L., Miller, M. B., Mir, S. A., et al. Glioproliferative lesion of the spinal cord as a complication of ‘stem-cell tourism’. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016; 375: 196–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goldman, S. A., Nedergaard, M., Windrem, M. S. Glial progenitor cell-based treatment and modeling of neurological disease. Science 2012; 338: 491–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Thompson, L. H., Bjorklund, A. Reconstruction of brain circuitry by neural transplants generated from pluripotent stem cells. Neurobiol. Dis. 2015; 79: 28–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mendez, I., Hong, M., Smith, S., et al. A neural transplantation cannula and microinjector system: experimental and clinical experience. J. Neurosurg. 2000; 92: 493–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lindvall, O. Dopaminergic neurons for Parkinson’s therapy. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012; 30: 56–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barker, R. A., Barret, J., Mason, S. L., et al. Fetal dopaminergic transplantation trials and the future of neural grafting in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet. Neurol. 2013; 12: 84–91.Google Scholar

Mendez, I., Sanchez-Pernaute, R., Vinuela, A., et al. Cell type analysis of fetal dopamine cell suspension transplants in striatum and substantia nigra of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2005; 128: 1498–1510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mendez, I., Vinuela, A., Astradsson, A., et al. Dopamine neurons implanted into people with Parkinson’s disease survive without pathology for 14 years. Nat. Med. 2008; 14: 507–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Master, Z., McLeod, M., Mendez, I. Benefits, risks and ethical considerations in translation of stem cell research to clinical applications in Parkinson’s disease. J. Med. Ethics. 2007; 33: 169–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rosenfeld, J. V., Wong, Y. T. Neurobionics and the brain-computer interface: current applications and future horizons. Med. J. Aust. 2017; 206: 363–8.Google Scholar

Martin, S., Iturrate, I., Millan, J. D. R., et al. Decoding inner speech using electrocorticography: progress and challenges toward a speech prosthesis. Front Neurosci. 2018; 12: 422.Google Scholar

Burwell, S. M., Sample, M., Racine, E. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Med. Ethics 2017; 18: 60.Google Scholar

Klein, E. Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identifying risks and exploring meaning. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2016; 22: 1299–1317.Google Scholar

Clausen, J., Fetz, E., Donoghue, J., et al. Help, hope, and hype: ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics. Science 2017; 356: 1338–9.Google Scholar

Yuste, R., Goering, S., Arcas, B. A. Y., et al. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 2017; 551: 159–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vidal, J. Real-time detection of brain events in EEG. IEEE Proceedings 1977; 65 : 633–44.Google Scholar

Lewis, P. M., Ayton, L. N., Guymer, R. H., et al. Advances in implantable bionic devices for blindness: a review. ANZ J. Surg. 2016; 86: 654–9.Google Scholar

Hochberg, L. R., Serruya, M. D., Friehs, G. M., et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 2006; 442: 164–71.Google Scholar

Deadwyler, S. A., Berger, T. W., Sweatt, A. J., et al. Donor/recipient enhancement of memory in rat hippocampus. Front Syst. Neurosci. 2013; 7: 120.Google Scholar

Deadwyler, S. A., Hampson, R. E., Song, D., et al. A cognitive prosthesis for memory facilitation by closed-loop functional ensemble stimulation of hippocampal neurons in primate brain. Exp. Neurol. 2017; 287: 452–60.Google Scholar

Oxley, T. J., Opie, N. L., John, S. E., et al. Minimally invasive endovascular stent-electrode array for high-fidelity, chronic recordings of cortical neural activity. Nature Biotech. 2016; 34: 320–7.Google Scholar

Roskies, A. L., Agency and intervention. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2015 370: 20140215.Google Scholar

Gilbert, F., Cook, M., OBrien, T., et al. Embodiment and estrangement: results from a first-in-human intelligent BCI trial. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019; 25(1): 83–96.Google Scholar

Lane, F. J., Huyck, M., Troyk, P., et al. Responses of potential users to the intracortical visual prosthesis: final themes from the analysis of focus group data. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2012; 7: 304–13.Google Scholar

Thompson, M. C. Critiquing the concept of BCI illiteracy. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2019; 25(4): 1217–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Thomson, E. E., Carra, R., Nicolelis, M. A. Perceiving invisible light through a somatosensory cortical prosthesis. Nat. Commun. 2013; 4: 1482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pais-Vieira, M., Chiuffa, G., Lebedev, M., et al. Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains. Sci. Rep. 2015; 5: 11869.Google Scholar

Ramakrishnan, A., Ifft, P. J., Pais-Vieira, M., et al. Computing arm movements with a monkey brainet. Sci. Rep. 2015; 5: 10767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Grau, C., Ginhoux, R., Riera, A., et al. Conscious brain-to-brain communication in humans using non-invasive technologies. PLoS One 2014; 9: e105225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yoo, S. S., Kim, H., Filandrianos, E., et al. Non-invasive brain-to-brain interface (BBI): establishing functional links between two brains. PLoS One 2103; 8: e60410.Google Scholar

Cadotte, D. W., Sedney, C., Djimbaye, H., Bernstein, M. A qualitative assessment of the benefits and challenges of international neurosurgical teaching collaboration in Ethiopia. World Neurosurgery 2014, 82(6): 980–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fallah, P. N., Bernstein, M. Unifying a fragmented effort: a qualitative framework for improving international surgical teaching collaborations. Globalization and Health 2017, 13: 70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ibrahim, G. M., Bernstein, M. Models of neurosurgery international aid and their potential ethical pitfalls. Virtual Mentor, American Medical Association Journal of Ethics 2015, 17(1): 49–55.Google ScholarPubMed

Dewan, M. C., Rattani, A., Fieggen, G., et al. Global neurosurgery: the current capacity and deficit in the provision of essential neurosurgical care. Executive summary of the Global Neurosurgery Initiative and the Program in Global Surgery and Social Change. Journal of Neurosurgery 2017, doi:10.3171/2017.11.JNS171500.Google Scholar

Ammar, A., Bernstein, M. Neurosurgical Ethics in Practice: Value-Based Medicine. Berlin, Springer, 2014.Google Scholar

Kulkarni, A. V., Riva-Cambrin, J., Browd, S. R., et al. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy and choroid plexus cauterization in infants with hydrocephalus: a retrospective Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network study. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2014, 14(3): 224–9.Google Scholar

Ng, L. C., Hanlon, C., Yimer, G., Henderson, D. C., Fekadu, A. Ethics in global health research: the need for balance. Lancet Glob. Health 2015, 3(9): e516–17.Google Scholar

Howe, K. L., Malomo, A. O., Bernstein, M. A. Ethical challenges in international surgical education. World Neurosurgery 2013, 80(6): 751–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Branch, C. L., Boop, F., Haglund, M. M., Dempsey, R. J. Introduction. Neurosurgical opportunities in global health inequities. Neurosurgical Focus 2018; 45(4): E1.Google Scholar

Blankstein, U., Dakurah, T., Bagan, M., Hodaie, M. Structured online neurosurgical education as a novel method of education delivery in the developing world. World Neurosurgery 2011, 76: 224–30.Google Scholar

Shimizu, S., Han, H. S., Okamura, K., et al. Live demonstration of surgery across international borders with uncompressed high-definition quality. HPB (Oxford). 2007; 9: 398–9.Google Scholar

Shimizu, S., Ohtsuka, T., Takahata, S., et al. Remote transmission of live endoscopy over the Internet: Report from the 87th Congress of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. Dig. Endosc. 2016; 28: 92–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Roser, F., Pfister, G., Tatagiba, M., et al. Live surgery in neurosurgical training courses: essential infrastructure and technical set-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013; 155: 541–5.Google Scholar

Philip-Watson, J., Khan, S. A., Hadjipavlou, M., et al. Live surgery at conferences - Clinical benefits and ethical dilemmas. Arab. J. Urol. 2014; 12: 183–6.Google Scholar

Williams, J. B., Mathews, R., D’Amico, T. A. ‘Reality surgery’ – a research ethics perspective on the live broadcast of surgical procedures. J. Surg. Educ. 2011; 68: 58–61.Google Scholar

Dikkers, F. G., Klussmann, J. P., Bernal-Sprekelsen, M., et al. Live surgery broadcast: who is benefiting? Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 273: 1331–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nagata, K. Live surgery at the 33rd Japanese Conference on Surgery for Cerebral Stroke. Surgery for Cerebral Stroke 2005; 33: 58. (Translated from Japanese)Google Scholar

Live surgery at the 33rd Japanese Conference on Surgery for Cerebral Stroke. Available at: http://knagata.kt.fc2.com/ronbun.htm. (Translated from Japanese)Google Scholar

Patient in ‘live’ surgery showing died soon after. 2007. Available at: www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/06/07/national/patient-in-live-surgery-showing-died-soon-after/.Google Scholar

Misaki, T., Takamoto, S., Matsuda, H., et al. Guidelines to live presentations of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2007. Available at: http://square.umin.ac.jp/jscvs/eng/live.html.Google Scholar

Miyamoto, Y., Ueda, Y., Sakata, R., et al. Guidelines for live presentations of cardiovascular surgery (revised). Available at: http://square.umin.ac.jp/jscvs/english/live.html.Google Scholar

Brush-up seminar of neuroendovascular therapy. Available at: www.bsnet.umin.net/.Google Scholar

Why this doctor is performing brain surgery on live TV – latest stories. 2015. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/10/151022-brain-surgery-live-deep-brain-stimulation-parkinsons/.Google Scholar

Brain surgery on live TV – helpful or exploitative? STAT. 2015. Available at: www.statnews.com/2015/10/21/brain-surgery-on-live-tv-helpful-or-exploitive/.Google Scholar

Schlachter, L. B. Brain surgery on live TV – first do no harm. 2015. Available at: www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/post_140.html.Google Scholar