BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic surgery, conversion to laparotomy is associated with worse clinical outcomes, especially if the conversion is due to a complication. Although apparently important, no commonly used definition of conversion exists. The aim of this study was to achieve multidisciplinary consensus on a uniform definition of conversion. METHODS: On the basis of definitions currently used in the literature, a web-based Delphi consensus study was conducted among members of all four Dutch endoscopic societies. The rate of agreement (RoA) was calculated; a RoA of >70% suggested consensus. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 268 respondents in the first Delphi round (response rate, 45.6%); 43% were general surgeons, 49% gynecologists, and 8% urologists. Average ± standard deviation laparoscopic experience was 12.5 ± 7.2 years. On the basis of the results of round 1, a consensus definition was compiled. Conversion to laparotomy is an intraoperative switch from a laparoscopic to an open abdominal approach that meets the criteria of one of the two subtypes: strategic conversion, a standard laparotomy that is made directly after the assessment of the feasibility of completing the procedure laparoscopically and because of anticipated operative difficulty or logistic considerations; and reactive conversion, the need for a laparotomy because of a complication or (extension of an incision) because of (anticipated) operative difficulty after a considerable amount of dissection (i.e., >15 min in time). A laparotomy after a diagnostic laparoscopy (i.e., to assess the curability of the disease) should not be considered a conversion. In the second Delphi round, a RoA of 90% was achieved with this definition. CONCLUSIONS: After two Delphi rounds, consensus on a uniform multidisciplinary definition of conversion was achieved within a representative group of general surgeons, gynecologists, and urologists. An unambiguous interpretation will result in a more reliable clinical registration of conversion and scientific evaluation of the feasibility of a laparoscopic procedure.
BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic surgery, conversion to laparotomy is associated with worse clinical outcomes, especially if the conversion is due to a complication. Although apparently important, no commonly used definition of conversion exists. The aim of this study was to achieve multidisciplinary consensus on a uniform definition of conversion. METHODS: On the basis of definitions currently used in the literature, a web-based Delphi consensus study was conducted among members of all four Dutch endoscopic societies. The rate of agreement (RoA) was calculated; a RoA of >70% suggested consensus. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 268 respondents in the first Delphi round (response rate, 45.6%); 43% were general surgeons, 49% gynecologists, and 8% urologists. Average ± standard deviation laparoscopic experience was 12.5 ± 7.2 years. On the basis of the results of round 1, a consensus definition was compiled. Conversion to laparotomy is an intraoperative switch from a laparoscopic to an open abdominal approach that meets the criteria of one of the two subtypes: strategic conversion, a standard laparotomy that is made directly after the assessment of the feasibility of completing the procedure laparoscopically and because of anticipated operative difficulty or logistic considerations; and reactive conversion, the need for a laparotomy because of a complication or (extension of an incision) because of (anticipated) operative difficulty after a considerable amount of dissection (i.e., >15 min in time). A laparotomy after a diagnostic laparoscopy (i.e., to assess the curability of the disease) should not be considered a conversion. In the second Delphi round, a RoA of 90% was achieved with this definition. CONCLUSIONS: After two Delphi rounds, consensus on a uniform multidisciplinary definition of conversion was achieved within a representative group of general surgeons, gynecologists, and urologists. An unambiguous interpretation will result in a more reliable clinical registration of conversion and scientific evaluation of the feasibility of a laparoscopic procedure.
Authors: Andries R H Twijnstra; Mathijs D Blikkendaal; Erik W van Zwet; Frank W Jansen Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: R Garry; J Fountain; J Brown; A Manca; S Mason; M Sculpher; V Napp; S Bridgman; J Gray; R Lilford Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Martijn H G M van der Pas; Charlotte L Deijen; Gabor S A Abis; Elly S M de Lange-de Klerk; Eva Haglind; Alois Fürst; Antonio M Lacy; Miguel A Cuesta; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mathijs D Blikkendaal; Evelyn M Schepers; Erik W van Zwet; Andries R H Twijnstra; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Sara R C Driessen; Evelien M Sandberg; Sharon P Rodrigues; Erik W van Zwet; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Evelien M Sandberg; Sara R C Driessen; Evelien A T Bak; Nan van Geloven; Judith P Berger; Mathilde J G H Smeets; Johann P T Rhemrev; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Gynecol Surg Date: 2018-03-16
Authors: Christelle M Follette; Michelle A Giuffrida; Ingrid M Balsa; William T N Culp; Philipp D Mayhew; Michelle L Oblak; Ameet Singh; Michele A Steffey Journal: Vet Surg Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 1.495
Authors: Michael P M de Neree Tot Babberich; Julia T van Groningen; Evelien Dekker; Theo Wiggers; Michel W J M Wouters; Willem A Bemelman; Pieter J Tanis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 4.584