Dionysios Mitropoulos1, Walter Artibani2, Chandra Shekhar Biyani3, Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen4, Morgan Rouprêt5, Michael Truss6. 1. 1st Department of Urology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: dmp@otenet.gr. 2. Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 4. Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark. 5. Academic Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France; UPMC University Paris 06, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Paris, France. 6. Department of Urology, Klinikum Dortmund GmbH, Dortmund, Germany.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Since 2012 uniformed reporting of complications after urological procedures has been advocated by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. The Clavien-Dindo grading system was recommended to report the outcomes of urologic procedures. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Clavien-Dindo grading system in urology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Members of the EAU working group compiled a list of case scenarios including those with minor and major complications. A survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to the members of EAU committees for the appropriate grading according to the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Scenarios with intraoperative complications were intentionally included to assess respondents' awareness of the Clavien-Dindo applicability. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Survey data collected were used to calculate agreement rates and to estimate the overall inter-rater agreement on all cases using Fleiss' kappa (κ). Differences in agreement rates for each scenario among groups with different criteria about the system were estimated using the chi-square test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Evaluable responses were received from 81 out of 174 invited raters (46.5%). Of them 56.9% believed that the Clavien-Dindo system was adequate for grading postoperative complications. The agreement rate was over a score of ≥80% in nine cases, 60-79% in 10 cases, 40-59% in 14 cases, and <40% in two cases. Interestingly, the agreement rate on the nonapplicability of the Clavien-Dindo system was quite low, ranging from 27.5% to 67.2% (κ=0.147). Being a resident rather than a specialist affected only the distribution of agreement rates in case 1 (ie, score IIIb: 83.3% vs 94.1%). Being an academic or having affiliation did not have any impact on the distribution of agreement rates in all cases but one. CONCLUSIONS: The Clavien-Dindo classification is a standardised approach to grade and report postoperative complications in urology and should be used systematically. However, it does not apply for intraoperative complications, and there is a need for an additional tool. PATIENT SUMMARY: A rigorous methodology is mandatory when surgeons report about complications after surgery. In this study, the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel has validated the use of the Clavien-Dindo grading system in urology.
CONTEXT: Since 2012 uniformed reporting of complications after urological procedures has been advocated by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. The Clavien-Dindo grading system was recommended to report the outcomes of urologic procedures. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Clavien-Dindo grading system in urology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Members of the EAU working group compiled a list of case scenarios including those with minor and major complications. A survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to the members of EAU committees for the appropriate grading according to the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Scenarios with intraoperative complications were intentionally included to assess respondents' awareness of the Clavien-Dindo applicability. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Survey data collected were used to calculate agreement rates and to estimate the overall inter-rater agreement on all cases using Fleiss' kappa (κ). Differences in agreement rates for each scenario among groups with different criteria about the system were estimated using the chi-square test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Evaluable responses were received from 81 out of 174 invited raters (46.5%). Of them 56.9% believed that the Clavien-Dindo system was adequate for grading postoperative complications. The agreement rate was over a score of ≥80% in nine cases, 60-79% in 10 cases, 40-59% in 14 cases, and <40% in two cases. Interestingly, the agreement rate on the nonapplicability of the Clavien-Dindo system was quite low, ranging from 27.5% to 67.2% (κ=0.147). Being a resident rather than a specialist affected only the distribution of agreement rates in case 1 (ie, score IIIb: 83.3% vs 94.1%). Being an academic or having affiliation did not have any impact on the distribution of agreement rates in all cases but one. CONCLUSIONS: The Clavien-Dindo classification is a standardised approach to grade and report postoperative complications in urology and should be used systematically. However, it does not apply for intraoperative complications, and there is a need for an additional tool. PATIENT SUMMARY: A rigorous methodology is mandatory when surgeons report about complications after surgery. In this study, the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel has validated the use of the Clavien-Dindo grading system in urology.
Authors: Britta Grüne; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewksi; Frank Waldbillig; Jost von Hardenberg; Marie-Claire Rassweiler-Seyfried; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Jonas Herrmann Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Andreas Hiester; Alessandro Nini; Günter Niegisch; Christian Arsov; Hubertus Hautzel; Christina Antke; Lars Schimmöller; Peter Albers; Robert Rabenalt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marco Bandini; Guido Barbagli; Riccardo Leni; Giuseppe O Cirulli; Giuseppe Basile; Sofia Balò; Francesco Montorsi; Salvatore Sansalone; Andrea Salonia; Alberto Briganti; Denis Butnaru; Massimo Lazzeri Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marina Deuker; Jessica Rührup; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maria Welte; Luis A Kluth; Severine Banek; Frederik C Roos; Philipp Mandel; Felix K-H Chun; Andreas Becker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ndéye F Guissé; Joseph D Stone; Lukas G Keil; Tracey P Bastrom; Mark A Erickson; Burt Yaszay; Patrick J Cahill; Stefan Parent; Peter G Gabos; Peter O Newton; Michael P Glotzbecker; Michael P Kelly; Joshua M Pahys; Nicholas D Fletcher Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2021-08-05
Authors: Bas Israël; Jos Immerzeel; Marloes van der Leest; Gerjon Hannink; Patrik Zámecnik; Joyce Bomers; Ivo G Schoots; Jean-Paul van Basten; Frans Debruyne; Inge van Oort; Michiel Sedelaar; Jelle Barentsz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 5.969