Giovanni E Cacciamani1, Luis G Medina2, Alessandro Tafuri3, Tania Gill2, Willy Baccaglini4, Vanessa Blasic4, Felipe P A Glina5, Andre L De Castro Abreu2, René Sotelo2, Inderbir S Gill2, Walter Artibani6. 1. Urology Institute University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, United States; Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu. 2. Urology Institute University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, United States. 3. Urology Institute University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, United States; Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy; ABC Medical School, Santo André, SP, Brazil. 5. Urology Institute University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, United States; Lusíada University Center, School of Medical Sciences of Santos, Santos, SP, Brazil. 6. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Abstract
The definition of a surgical complication still lacks standardization, hampering evaluation of surgical performance in this regard. Over the years, efforts to address this issue have been carried out to improve reporting of outcomes. In 2012, the European Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a standardized reporting tool for urological complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of those recommendations on complication reporting for patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). A comprehensive systematic review of all English language publications on RPN was carried out. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines in evaluating articles retrieved from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2016; updated June 2017). The quality of reporting and grading complications was assessed according to the EAU recommendations. Temporal comparison revealed an improvement in outcome reporting in terms of mortality rates and causes of death (p=0.05), definition of complications (p<0.001), procedure-specific complications (p=0.02), severity grade (p<0.001), postoperative complications presented by grade/complication type (p<0.001), and risk factors (p<0.001). Our analysis demonstrates an improvement in complication reporting and grading after the EAU recommendation on RPN. PATIENT SUMMARY: Complications are unexpected events that could negatively impact a patient's outcomes after surgery, but there is no agreement on the definition and reporting of complications. In 2012, the European Association of Urology proposed a standardized reporting tool for urological complications. This study shows an improvement in the way physicians report complications after robotic partial nephrectomy. The results underline the importance of standardization in medicine to improve clinical research.
The definition of a surgical complication still lacks standardization, hampering evaluation of surgical performance in this regard. Over the years, efforts to address this issue have been carried out to improve reporting of outcomes. In 2012, the European Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a standardized reporting tool for urological complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of those recommendations on complication reporting for patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). A comprehensive systematic review of all English language publications on RPN was carried out. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines in evaluating articles retrieved from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2016; updated June 2017). The quality of reporting and grading complications was assessed according to the EAU recommendations. Temporal comparison revealed an improvement in outcome reporting in terms of mortality rates and causes of death (p=0.05), definition of complications (p<0.001), procedure-specific complications (p=0.02), severity grade (p<0.001), postoperative complications presented by grade/complication type (p<0.001), and risk factors (p<0.001). Our analysis demonstrates an improvement in complication reporting and grading after the EAU recommendation on RPN. PATIENT SUMMARY: Complications are unexpected events that could negatively impact a patient's outcomes after surgery, but there is no agreement on the definition and reporting of complications. In 2012, the European Association of Urology proposed a standardized reporting tool for urological complications. This study shows an improvement in the way physicians report complications after robotic partial nephrectomy. The results underline the importance of standardization in medicine to improve clinical research.
Authors: Elio Mazzone; Frederiek D'Hondt; Sergi Beato; Iulia Andras; Edward Lambert; Jonathan Vollemaere; Marcio Covas Moschovas; Ruben De Groote; Geert De Naeyer; Peter Schatteman; Alexandre Mottrie; Paolo Dell'Oglio Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Marie Angela Sidoti Abate; Manuel Neuberger; Marietta Kirchner; Regina Krisam; Luisa Egen; Caelan Max Haney; Fabian Siegel; Maurice-Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Philipp Nuhn; Niklas Westhoff; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michael Eppler; Aref S Sayegh; Mitchell Goldenberg; Tamir Sholklapper; Sij Hemal; Giovanni E Cacciamani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.964