Reporting of Adverse Events in Surgical Trials: Critical Appraisal of Current Practice

The clinical significance of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Surgical quality plays a vital role in the treatment of malignant tumors. We investigated the classification of intraoperative adverse events (iAE) (ClassIntra) in relation to the surgical quality control of laparoscopic radical hysterectomies.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 195 patients who had undergone laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early stage cervical cancer between July 2019 and July 2021 was enrolled. Participants were classified into either an iAE or non-iAE groups in accordance with their intraoperative status. Surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 (24.6%) patients experienced 71 iAE. The iAE group was associated with significantly longer operative times (mean: 270 vs. 245 min, P < 0.001), greater blood loss (mean: 215 vs. 120 mL, P < 0.001), and longer postoperative hospital stays (median: 16 vs. 11 days). Larger tumors and poor technical performance significantly increased the risk of iAE (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that iAE were the only independent risk factors for postoperative complications (hazard ratio, 15.100; 95% confidence interval: 4.735-48.158, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients who experienced iAE had significantly lower satisfaction scores and poorer quality of life (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ClassIntra may serve as an effective adjunctive tool for surgical quality control in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

The quality of clinical trials is essential to advance treatment, inform regulatory decisions and meta-analysis. With the increased incidence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension and the emergence of clinical trials for novel therapies in this condition, the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension aims to establish guidelines for designing state-of-the-art controlled clinical trials for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

Distribution of Psychological Instability Among Surgeons

BACKGROUND

High emotional instability (i.e., neuroticism) is associated with poor mental health. Conversely, traumatic experiences may increase neuroticism. Stressful experiences such as complications are common in the surgical profession, with neurosurgeons being particularly affected. We compared the personality trait neuroticism between physicians in a prospective cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We used an online survey using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, an internationally validated measure of the 5-factor model of personality dimensions. It was distributed to board-certified physicians, residents, and medical students in several European countries and Canada (n = 5148). Multivariate linear regression was used to model differences between surgeons, nonsurgeons, and specialties with occasional surgical interventions with respect to neuroticism, adjusting for sex, age, age squared, and their interactions, then testing equality of parameters of adjusted predictions separately and jointly using Wald tests.

RESULTS

With an expected variability within disciplines, average levels of neuroticism are lower in surgeons than nonsurgeons, especially in the first part of their career. However, the course of neuroticism across age follows a quadratic pattern, that is, an increase after the initial decrease. The acceleration of neuroticism with age is specifically significant in surgeons. Levels of neuroticism are lowest towards mid-career, but exhibit a strong secondary increase towards the end of the surgeon's career. This pattern seems driven by neurosurgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite initially lower levels of neuroticism, surgeons suffer a stronger increase of neuroticism together with age. Because, beyond well-being, neuroticism influences professional performance and health care systems costs, explanatory studies are mandatory to enlighten causes of this burden.

Why is there a lack of evidence regarding errors and complications in periodontal and implant therapy?

The occurrence of errors, complications, and adverse effects may occur as a consequence of single or multiple events related to the clinician and/or patient. Apparently, the amount of dental literature on these undesirable outcomes has not been as prolific as that obtained for conventional primary periodontal outcome measures. This review explores the potential reasons for the lack of studies reporting on errors and complications in periodontal and implant therapy, as well as other noteworthy methodological aspects, to enlighten their impact on the selection of the best (or most appropriate) "gold standard" periodontal/implant-related treatment options, and on the overall decision-making process. The following points were addressed: (a) the importance of reporting errors and complications in clinical research; (b) the adequate reporting of errors and complications in periodontology and dental implantology; and (c) efficacy trials vs effectiveness studies and their impact on the assessment and report of periodontal and implant treatment-related risks and complications.

Clavien-Dindo, comprehensive complication index and classification of intraoperative adverse events: a uniform and holistic approach in adverse event registration for (deep) endometriosis surgery

STUDY QUESTION

What is the additional value of the comprehensive complication index (CCI) and ClassIntra system (classification for intraoperative adverse events (ioAEs)) in adverse event (AE) reporting in (deep) endometriosis (DE) surgery compared to only using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The CCI and ClassIntra are useful additional tools alongside the CD system for a complete and uniform overview of the total AE burden in patients with extensive surgery (such as DE), and with this uniform data registration, it is possible to provide greater insight into the quality of care.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Uniform comparison of AEs reported in the literature is hampered by scattered registration. In endometriosis surgery, the usage of the CD complication system and the CCI is internationally recommended; however, the CCI is not routinely adapted in endometriosis care and research. Furthermore, a recommendation for ioAEs registration in endometriosis surgery is lacking, although this is vital information in surgical quality assessments.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A prospective mono-center study was conducted with 870 surgical DE cases from a non-university DE expertise center between February 2019 and December 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Endometriosis cases were collected with the EQUSUM system, a publicly available web-based application for registration of surgical procedures for endometriosis. Postoperative adverse events (poAEs) were classified with the CD complication system and CCI. Differences in reporting and classifying AEs between the CCI and the CD were assessed. ioAEs were assessed with the ClassIntra. The primary outcome measure was to assess the additional value toward the CD classification with the introduction of the CCI and ClassIntra. In addition, we report a benchmark for the CCI in DE surgery.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 870 DE procedures were registered, of which 145 procedures with one or more poAEs, resulting in a poAE rate of 16.7% (145/870), of which in 36 cases (4.1%), the poAE was classified as severe (≥Grade 3b). The median CCI (interquartile range) of patients with poAEs was 20.9 (20.9-31.7) and 33.7 (33.7-39.7) in the group of patients with severe poAEs. In 20 patients (13.8%), the CCI was higher than the CD because of multiple poAEs. There were 11 ioAEs reported (11/870, 1.3%) in all procedures, mostly minor and directly repaired serosa injuries.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study was conducted at a single center; thus, trends in AE rates and type of AEs could differ from other centers. Furthermore, no conclusion could be drawn on ioAEs in relation to the postoperative course because the power of this database is not robust enough for that purpose.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

From our data, we would advise to use the Clavien-Dindo classification system together with the CCI and ClassIntra for a complete overview of AE registration. The CCI appeared to provide a more complete overview of the total burden of poAEs compared to only reporting the most severe poAEs (as with CD). If the use of the CD, CCI, and ClassIntra is widely adapted, uniform data comparison will be possible at (inter)national level, providing better insight into the quality of care. Our data could be used as a first benchmark for other DE centers to optimize information provision in the shared decision-making process.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No funding was received for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting

BACKGROUND

Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures.

RESULTS

Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality.

Classification of Adverse Events in Adult Surgery

Successful surgery combines quality (achievement of a positive outcome) with safety (avoidance of a negative outcome). Outcome assessment serves the purpose of quality improvement in health care by establishing performance indicators and allowing the identification of performance gaps. Novel surgical quality metric tools (benchmark cutoffs and textbook outcomes) provide procedure-specific ideal surgical outcomes in a subgroup of well-defined low-risk patients, with the aim of setting realistic and best achievable goals for surgeons and centers, as well as supporting unbiased comparison of surgical quality between centers and periods of time. Validated classification systems have been deployed to grade adverse events during the surgical journey: (1) the ClassIntra classification for the intraoperative period; (2) the Clavien-Dindo classification for the gravity of single adverse events; and the (3) Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) for the sum of adverse events over a defined postoperative period. The failure to rescue rate refers to the death of a patient following one or more potentially treatable postoperative adverse event(s) and is a reliable proxy of the institutional safety culture and infrastructure. Complication assessment is undergoing digital transformation to decrease resource-intensity and provide surgeons with real-time pre- or intraoperative decision support. Standardized reporting of complications informs patients on their chances to realize favorable postoperative outcomes and assists surgical centers in the prioritization of quality improvement initiatives, multidisciplinary teamwork, surgical education, and ultimately, in the enhancement of clinical standards.

Inter-Rater Agreement of the Classification of Intraoperative Adverse Events (ClassIntra) in Abdominal Surgery

OBJECTIVE AND SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adverse events in surgical patients can occur preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. Universally accepted classification systems are not yet available for intraoperative adverse events (iAEs). ClassIntra has recently been developed and validated as a tool for grading iAEs that occur between skin incision and skin closure irrespective of the origin, that is, surgery, anesthesia, or organizational. The aim of this study is to assess the inter-rater agreement of ClassIntra and assess its predictive value for postoperative complications in elective abdominal surgery.

METHODS

This study is a secondary use of data from the LAParotomy or LAParoscopy and ADhesiolysis (LAPAD) study, with detailed data on incidence and management of intra-operative and post-operative complications. Data were collected in a cohort of elective abdominal surgeries. Two teams graded all recorded events in the LAPAD study according to ClassIntra. Cohen Kappa coefficient was calculated to determine inter-rater agreement. Uni- and multivariable linear regression was used to assess the predictive value of the ClassIntra grades for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

IAEs were rated in 333 of 755 (44%) surgeries by team 1, and in 324 of 755 (43%) surgeries by team 2. Cohen kappa coefficient for ClassIntra grades was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-0.90]. Discrepancies in grading were most frequent for intraoperative bleeding and adhesions' associated injuries. At least 1 postoperative complication was observed in 278 (37%) patients. The risk of a postoperative complications increased with every increase in severity grade of ClassIntra. Intraoperative hypotension [mean difference (MD) 23.41, 95% CI 12.93-33.90] and other organ injuries (MD 18.90, 95% CI -4.22 - 42.02) were the strongest predictors for postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

ClassIntra has an almost perfect inter-rater agreement for the classification of iAEs. An increasing grade of ClassIntra was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications. Discrepancies in grading related to common complications in abdominal procedures mostly consisted of intraoperative bleeding and adhesion-related injuries. Grading of interoperative events in abdominal surgery might further improve by consensus regarding the definitions of a number of frequent events.

Assessing the Reporting and Frequency of Harms in Systematic Reviews Focused on Minimally Invasive Hysterectomies: A Cross-sectional Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding minimally invasive hysterectomies (MIHs).

DATA SOURCES

We performed a cross-sectional analysis on SRs addressing MIHs to assess completeness of harms reporting. Hysterectomies are common gynecologic procedures and are associated with complications. Such adverse events can directly affect physician decision making and patient outcomes. Thus, it is important that SRs equally weigh the harms and benefits surrounding MIHs.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

On May 15, 2022, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs with or without a meta-analysis on MIH for any indication. Eligible studies underwent full-text screening, data extraction, harms reporting assessment, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 quality assessment in a masked, duplicate fashion. The corrected covered area was calculated to indicate any overlap between SR dyads.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 52 SRs met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. We found that >44 of included SRs (of 52; 84.6%) reported >50% of the harms items. Completeness of harms reporting was significantly associated with harms specification as a primary outcome (p <.05). The corrected covered area was 0.60%.

CONCLUSION

The harms reporting was more complete than hypothesized, but still had deficiencies throughout, such as inconsistent use of severity scales to classify harms. Even though MIH harms reporting in sample SRs was more complete than other fields of medicine, it was still suboptimal overall and requires refinement.

Classification of intraoperative adverse events in visceral surgery

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) are frequent in visceral surgery, but severity and related postoperative outcome are poorly investigated. A novel classification of intraoperative adverse events, ClassIntra, includes surgical and anesthesiologic intraoperative adverse events using 5 severity grades and showed a high criterion and construct validity across all surgical disciplines. ClassIntra was studied for reproducibility in a prespecified group of patients undergoing visceral surgery.

METHODS

iAEs were recorded in all patients enrolled in the ClassIntra validation study (NCT03009929). Postoperative complications were assessed daily according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results of the visceral group were compared with those of the non-visceral group and the full cohort. The risk-adjusted association between most severe intra and postoperative complications was investigated in a multivariable proportional odds model. Second, risk-adjusted association between ClassIntra grade and Comprehensive Complication Index, and postoperative length of stay was investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 1,270 out of 2,520 patients (50%) underwent visceral surgery. Compared with the nonvisceral group and full cohort, more intraoperative (337/1270 [27%] vs 273/1250 [22%] vs 610/2520 [24%] patients) and postoperative complications (457/1270 [36%] vs 381/1250 [30%] vs 838/2520 [33%] patients) occurred. The risk for a more severe postoperative complication increased with each ClassIntra grade (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] I vs 0 1.10 [0.73 to 1.66], II vs 0 1.69 [1.10 to 2.60], III vs 0 2.31 [1.21 to 4.41], IV vs 0 2.35 [0.69 to 8.06]). Accordingly, CCI and postoperative length of stay increased with each ClassIntra grade in the visceral group, comparable with the nonvisceral and full cohort.

CONCLUSION

Consistent results for the association of intraoperative adverse events and patient outcomes render ClassIntra a valuable instrument in visceral surgery.

Complications in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery: definitions, classifications, incidence and risk factors - an up-to-date review

Almost all gynecological and general-surgical operations are - or can be - performed laparoscopically. In comparison to an abdominal approach, the minimally invasive access offers several advantages; however, laparoscopy (both conventional and robotic-assisted) can be associated with a number of approach-specific complications. Although the majority of them are related to the laparoscopic entry, adverse events may also occur due to the presence of pneumoperitoneum or the use of laparoscopic instruments. Unfortunately, a high proportion of complications (especially affecting the bowel and ureter) remain unrecognized during surgery. This narrative review provides comprehensive up-to-date information about definitions, classifications, risk factors and incidence of surgical complications in conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopy, with a special focus on gynecology. The topic is discussed from various perspectives, e.g. in the context of stage of surgery, injured organs, involved instruments, and in relation to malpractice claims.

[Prospective Cohort Study of In-Hospital Patients Undergoing Ophthalmic Surgery for the Validation of ClassIntra: Classification of Intraoperative Adverse Events]

BACKGROUND

To the best of our knowledge, there is no validated classification to assess intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) in ophthalmic surgery. ClassIntra is a newly developed classification for surgery- and anaesthesia-related iAEs that has been recently validated in various surgical disciplines, but not in ophthalmic surgery. We aim to assess the validity and practicability of ClassIntra in patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of in-hospital patients undergoing any type of ophthalmic surgery was included in this single-centre prospective cohort study. iAEs were classified using ClassIntra, consisting of 5 severity grades according to the symptoms of the patient and the required treatment. All patients were followed for two weeks to record all postoperative adverse events according to Clavien-Dindo. The primary endpoint was the risk-adjusted association between the most severe iAE and the weighted sum of all postoperative adverse events within the two-week follow-up using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). In addition, ophthalmologists and anaesthesiologists were asked to complete an online survey assessing the severity of iAEs for 10 fictitious clinical case scenarios. Reliability was assessed by comparing the clinicians' ratings to the prespecified benchmark rating of the study team.

RESULTS

In this study, 100 in-hospital patients with an average age of 64 years (SD 15) were included. The majority of all patients were ASA II (n = 53, 53%) or III (n = 42, 42%). Thirty-two iAEs were recorded in 22 patients (17 grade I, 12 grade II, 3 grade III). Ninety-four postoperative adverse events occurred in 50 patients (44 grade I, 36 grade II, 14 grade IIIa). We found a mean difference in CCI of 2,1 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 2,5 to 6,8) per one unit increase in severity grades of ClassIntra. Fifty ophthalmologists and anaesthesiologists completed the online survey (response rate 54%). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0,79 (95% CI 0,64 to 0,94).

CONCLUSIONS

The application of ClassIntra during daily routine in ophthalmic surgery showed the usefulness and practicability of this classification for the standardised assessment of intraoperative adverse events. Although construct validity could not be demonstrated, the good reliability in the survey's rating underlines the criterion validity of this newly developed classification in ophthalmic surgery.

Reporting of Complications and Mortality in Relation to Risk Communication in Patients with an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

High-quality reporting of surgical risks is necessary for evidence-based risk communication in clinical practice. Risk communication is defined as the process of discussing benefits and harms of treatment options with patients. This review addressed the current quality of reporting of complications and mortality in publications on abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment, with a focus on items relevant to risk communication.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

MATERIALS

Randomised clinical trials, comparative observational studies and registries from 2010 onwards were eligible if they reported complications and/or mortality in patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms who received primary treatment.

METHODS

Quality of reporting was assessed by scoring items relevant to risk communication from the reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction were independently undertaken by two authors.

RESULTS

Forty-seven publications were included. Nine of 47 publications (19%) provided no definition of complications. In 14 of 47 publications (30%), it was unclear whether the number of adverse events or the number of patients with adverse events were presented. Absolute risk differences were provided in 1 of 32 publications (3.1%) that compared complications between two treatment options. Forty-six of 47 publications reported mortality, of which 42 reported overall mortality rates (91%). Absolute risk differences were given in 2 of the 31 publications (6.5%) that compared mortality between two treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of complications and mortality following primary abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment varied considerably. Better adherence to the SVS reporting standards and the CONSORT statement, as well as stating absolute risk differences may improve the quality of reporting and facilitate evidence-based risk communication.

Reliability of the Modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink Complication Classification System in Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery

Background

There is no standardized complication classification system that has been evaluated for use in pediatric or general orthopaedic surgery. Instead, subjective terms such as major and minor are commonly used. The Clavien-Dindo-Sink complication classification system has demonstrated high interrater and intrarater reliability for hip-preservation surgery and has increasingly been used within other orthopaedic subspecialties. This classification system is based on the magnitude of treatment required and the potential for each complication to result in long-term morbidity. The purpose of the current study was to modify the Clavien-Dindo-Sink system for application to all orthopaedic procedures (including those involving the spine and the upper and lower extremity) and to determine interrater and intrarater reliability of this modified system in pediatric orthopaedic surgery cases.

Methods

The Clavien-Dindo-Sink complication classification system was modified for use with general orthopaedic procedures. Forty-five pediatric orthopaedic surgical scenarios were presented to 7 local fellowship-trained pediatric orthopaedic surgeons at 1 center to test internal reliability, and 48 scenarios were then presented to 15 pediatric orthopaedic surgeons across the United States and Canada to test external reliability. Surgeons were trained to use the system and graded the scenarios in a random order on 2 occasions. Fleiss and Cohen kappa (κ) statistics were used to determine interrater and intrarater reliabilities, respectively.

Results

The Fleiss κ value for interrater reliability (and standard error) was 0.76 ± 0.01 (p < 0.0001) and 0.74 ± 0.01 (p < 0.0001) for the internal and external groups, respectively. For each grade, interrater reliability was good to excellent for both groups, with an overall range of 0.53 for Grade I to 1 for Grade V. The Cohen κ value for intrarater reliability was excellent for both groups, ranging from 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.95) to 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.00) for the internal test group and from 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.00) for the external test group.

Conclusions

The modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification system has good interrater and excellent intrarater reliability for the evaluation of complications following pediatric orthopaedic upper extremity, lower extremity, and spine surgery. Adoption of this reproducible, reliable system as a standard of reporting complications in pediatric orthopaedic surgery, and other orthopaedic subspecialties, could be a valuable tool for improving surgical practices and patient outcomes.

Use and acceptance of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition and criteria in the surgical literature

BACKGROUND

The level of utilization and acceptance of the 2005 International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) has not be quantified. The aim of this study was to determine the uptake of the ISGPF definition and evaluate its use in the surgical literature.

METHODS

A sample of primary studies, review articles, and textbooks were identified through screening of literature searches. Included citations were assessed for their definition of POPF and use of the ISGPF criteria.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2009, 6%-63% of primary papers were compliant with the ISGPF definition compared to 84%-98% from 2010 onwards. Of the primary studies compliant with the ISGPF criteria, 36% focused on grade B and C fistula and 15% did not report grade A fistula. 88% of European papers used the criteria compared to 77% and 72% of Asian and North American papers, respectively (p = 0.033). 46% of review articles and textbooks did not define POPF. Among those that defined POPF, 74% cited the ISGPF definition exclusively while 26% mentioned other definitions.

CONCLUSION

The ISGPF criteria have been widely adopted and accepted as the standard for defining POPF, although the utility of grade A fistulas is questionable.

Can Surgeons Adequately Capture Adverse Events Using the Spinal Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and OrthoSAVES?

BACKGROUND

Physicians have consistently shown poor adverse-event reporting practices in the literature and yet they have the clinical acumen to properly stratify and appraise these events. The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardized assessment tools designed to record adverse events in orthopaedic patients. These tools provide a list of prespecified adverse events for users to choose from-an aid that may improve adverse-event reporting by physicians.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The primary objective was to compare surgeons' adverse-event reporting with reporting by independent clinical reviewers using SAVES Version 2 (SAVES V2) and OrthoSAVES in elective orthopaedic procedures.

METHOD

This was a 10-week prospective study where SAVES V2 and OrthoSAVES were used by six orthopaedic surgeons and two independent, non-MD clinical reviewers to record adverse events after all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Neither surgeons nor reviewers received specific training on adverse-event reporting. Surgeons were aware of the ongoing study, and reported adverse events based on their clinical interactions with the patients. Reviewers recorded adverse events by reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses and physiotherapists). Adverse events were graded using the severity-grading system included in SAVES V2 and OrthoSAVES. At discharge, adverse events recorded by surgeons and reviewers were recorded in our database.

RESULTS

Adverse-event data for 164 patients were collected (48 patients who had spine surgery, 51 who had hip surgery, 34 who had knee surgery, and 31 who had shoulder surgery). Overall, 99 adverse events were captured by the reviewers, compared with 14 captured by the surgeons (p < 0.001). Surgeons adequately captured major adverse events, but failed to record minor events that were captured by the reviewers. A total of 93 of 99 (94%) adverse events reported by reviewers required only simple or minor treatment and had no long-term adverse effect. Three patients experienced adverse events that resulted in use of invasive or complex treatment that had a temporary adverse effect on outcome.

CONCLUSION

Using SAVES V2 and OrthoSAVES, independent reviewers reported more minor adverse events compared with surgeons. The value of third-party reviewers requires further investigation in a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Complications associated with arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair: definition of a core event set by Delphi consensus process

BACKGROUND

The literature does not consistently report on complications associated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Valid comparison of the occurrence of complications between ARCR interventions requires standardization. This project was implemented to define a core set of negative (untoward) events associated with ARCR along with their terms and definitions, which should be systematically documented and reported in routine care and clinical research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Delphi consensus process was applied. An international panel of experienced shoulder surgeons was nominated through professional societies and personal contacts. On the basis of a systematic review of terms and definitions, an organized list of relevant events associated with ARCR was developed and reviewed by panel members. Between each survey, all comments and suggestions were considered to revise the proposed core set, including local event groups along with definitions, specifications, and timing of occurrence. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds agreement.

RESULTS

Three successive online surveys were implemented involving 84 surgeons. Consensus with over 86% agreement was reached for a core list of local events including 3 intraoperative event groups (device, osteochondral, and soft tissue) and 9 postoperative event groups (device, osteochondral, pain, rotator cuff, surgical-site infection, peripheral neurologic, vascular, superficial soft tissue, and deep soft tissue). Experts agreed on a period for documentation of each event or group of events ranging from 3 to 24 months after ARCR.

CONCLUSION

A structured core set of local events associated with ARCR has been developed by international consensus. Further evaluation and validation in the context of clinical studies are required.

Prospective assessment of complications on a daily basis is essential to determine morbidity and mortality in routine pediatric surgery

AIMS OF THE STUDY

We aimed to assess postoperative complications prospectively on a daily basis and hypothesized that this would lead to an increase in the number of detected complications.

METHODS

Surgical complications were assessed prospectively during a period of 8months. Systematic documentation was carried out daily during a team meeting (period S). Data were compared to those of a preceding period of 8-months of nonsystematic assessment (period N) in which complications had been documented in a self-reporting fashion. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

A total of 1291 patients (mean age: 6.6years) were included. During period S complications were determined in 16% of 790 operations compared to 4% of 741 procedures in period N (p<0.01). This difference was owing to an increased detection of minor complications (grade I-III), i.e. wound infection, dysuria after hypospadias repair or postoperative bleeding. In contrast, the incidence of severe complications (grade IV+V) was not significantly different between the time periods (1.3% in period S and 0.8% in period N). Most frequent major complications were cardiopulmonary arrest, enterocolitis, and death. Severe complications accounted for 8% of complications discussed during weekly morbidity and mortality conferences in period S versus 22% in period N (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that a systematic documentation of complications on a daily basis reveals a more realistic picture of the incidence of pediatric surgical complications and should be the method of choice.

Definition and Classification of Intraoperative Complications (CLASSIC): Delphi Study and Pilot Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Standardized reporting of intraoperative adverse events is important to enhance transparency. To the best of our knowledge, there is no validated definition and classification of intraoperative complications.

METHODS

We conducted a two-round Delphi study to develop a definition and classification of intraoperative complications. Experts were contacted by email and sent a link to the online questionnaire. In a pilot study, two independent raters applied the definition and classification in a sample of 60 surgical interventions of low, intermediate, and high complexity and evaluated practicability. Interrater agreement of the classification was determined (raw categorical agreement, weighted kappa, and intraclass correlation).

RESULTS

In the Delphi study, 40 of 52 experts (77 % return rate) from 14 countries took part in each round. The Delphi study resulted in a comprehensive definition of intraoperative complications as any deviation from the ideal intraoperative course occurring between skin incision and skin closure. The classification foresees four grades depending on the need for treatment (no need, grade I; need for treatment, grade II) and the severity of the complication (life-threatening/permanent disability, grade III; death, grade IV). The pilot study showed good practicability (6 on a 7-point scale) and a high raw agreement of 87 %, a weighted kappa of 0.83 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.94] and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95 % CI 0.73-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

While the Delphi process enabled to develop definitions and classification of intraoperative complications by severity, further research including a multicentre international full-scale validation needs to be conducted with the ultimate goal to contribute to standardized reporting in surgical practice and research.

Which clinical scenarios do surgeons record as complications? A benchmarking study of seven hospitals

OBJECTIVES

To investigate agreement and potential differences in the application and interpretation of the definition among surgical departments of various hospitals.

DESIGN

24 cases were formulated including general, trauma, gastrointestinal and vascular surgery, and based on points of discussion about the definition and ambiguities regarding complication registration as encountered in daily practice. The cases were presented to the surgical staff and residents in seven Dutch hospitals, using the national registration system of complications and an electronic response system.

RESULTS

In total, 134 participants responded. Interpretation differences were particularly found regarding: (1) complications considered as logical consequences of a surgical procedure; (2) complications occurring after radiological interventions; (3) severity criteria such as when to consider a complication as a '(probably) permanent damage or function loss'; (4) registering a cancelled operation as a complication and (5) patients with serial complications during hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of surgical complications as currently applied in the Netherlands does not ensure a uniform complication registration. Improvement of this registration system is mandatory before benchmarking of these findings in the public domain is appropriate. Modifications of the current definition of a surgical complication, and improved consensus about specific clinical situations and training of surgeons might improve the quality of benchmarking.