The Uro-Clavien—Dindo System—Will the Limitations of the Clavien—Dindo System for Grading Complications of Urological Surgery Allow Modification of the Classification to Encourage National Adoption within the UK?
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online March, 2012
The Uro-Clavien—Dindo System—Will the Limitations of the Clavien—Dindo System for Grading Complications of Urological Surgery Allow Modification of the Classification to Encourage National Adoption within the UK?
Although quality outcome assessment is gaining widespread recognition, there is still no consensus about grading postoperative complications in urology. There have been several attempts to grade surgical complications. The Clavien—Dindo system has been standardised and validated. However there are limitations when using the system to grade urological complications. We suggest modification of the Clavien—Dindo system to include intraoperative complications. Widespread implementation of the grading system could benefit the transparent reporting of complications to demonstrate quality outcomes.
WanzelKR, JamiesonCG, BohnenJM. Complications on a general surgery service: incidence and reporting. Can J Surg2000; 43: 113–7.
2.
ThompsonJS, PriorMA. Quality assurance and morbidity and mortality conference. J Surg Res1992; 52: 97–100.
3.
Feldman L, Barkun J, Barkun A, Sampalis J, Rosenberg L. Measuring postoperative complications in general surgery patients using an outcomes-based strategy: comparison with complications presented at morbidity and mortality rounds. Surgery1997; 122: 711–9.
4.
BruceJ, KrukowskiZH, Al KhairyG, RussellEM, ParkKG. Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg2001; 88: 1157–68.
5.
MartinRCII, BrennanFM, JacquesDP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg2002; 235: 803–13.
6.
MorganM, NaomiSmith, KayThomas, MurphyDG. Is Clavien the new standard for reporting urological complications?BJU Int2009; 104: 434–6.
7.
ClavienPA, BarkunJ, de OliveiraML, VautheyJN, DindoD, SchulickRD, The Clavien—Dindo classification of surgical complications: five year experience. Ann Surg2009; 250: 187–96.
8.
DindoD, DemartinesN, ClavienPA. Classification of surgical complications — a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg2004; 240: 205–13.
9.
ShackletonCR, VierlingJM, NissenN, MartinP, PoordadF, TranT, Morbidity in live liver donors-standards-based adverse event reporting further refined. Arch Surg2005; 140: 888–95.
10.
BarrML, BelghitiJ, VillamilFG, PomfretEA, SutherlandDS, GruessnerRW, A report of the Vancouver forum on the care of the live organ donor: lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation2006; 81: 1373–85.
11.
NadalinS, MalagoM, RadtkeA, ErimY, SanerF, Valentin-GamazoC, Current trends in live liver donation. Transplant Int2007; 20: 312–30.
12.
StrasbergSM, LinehanDC, HawkinsWG. The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications. Ann Surg2009; 250: 177–86.
13.
MamoulakisC, EfthimiouI, KazoulisS, ChristoulakisI, SofrasF.The modified clavien classification system: a standardised platform for reporting complications in transurethral resection of prostate. World J Urol 2010. May 12 [Epub ahead of print].
14.
ZuazuJR, HruzaM, RassweilerJJ, de la RosetteJJ. The Clavien classification system to optimize the documentation of PCNL morbidity. Arch Ital Urol Androl2010; 82: 20–2.
15.
ShabsighA, KoretsR, VoraKC, BrooksCM, CroninAM, SavageC, Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. Eur Urol2009; 55: 164–74.
16.
KhanM Shamim, ElhageO, ChallacombeB, RimingtonP, MurphyD, DasguptaP.Analysis of early complications of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy using a standardized reporting system. Urology 2010. September 7 [Epub ahead of print].
17.
RabbaniF, YunisF, PinochetR, NogueriaL.Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2010; 57: 371–86.
18.
StolzenburgJU, RabenaltR, DoM, LeeB, TrussMC, SchwaiboldH, Categorisation of complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal and laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy. World J Urol2006; 24: 88–93.
19.
MurphyDG, KergerM, CroweH, PetersJS, CostelloAJ. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol 2009 [Epub ahead of print].
20.
ConstantinidesCA, TyritzisSI, SkolarikosA, LiatsikosE, ZervasA, DeliveliotisC.Short- and long-term complications of open radical prostatectomy according to the Clavien classification system. BJU Int2009; 103: 336–40.
21.
WeiJT, DunnRL, LitwinMS, SandlerHM, SandaMG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology2000; 56: 899–905.
QuanH, LiB, CourisCM, FushimiK, GrahamP, HiderP, Updating and validating the charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 2011. February 17 [Epub ahead of print].
