Classification of intraoperative adverse events in visceral surgery.

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

Appraisal of Intraoperative Adverse Events to Improve Postoperative Care.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) are associated with adverse postoperative outcomes and cause a significant healthcare burden. However, a critical appraisal of iAEs is lacking. Considering the details of iAEs could benefit postoperative care. We comprehensively analyzed iAEs in a large series including all types of operations and their relation to postoperative complications. METHODS: All patients enrolled in the multicenter ClassIntra(®) validation study (NCT03009929) were included in this analysis. The surgical and anesthesia team prospectively recorded all iAEs. Two researchers, blinded to each other's ratings, appraised all recorded iAEs according to their origin into four categories: surgery, anesthesia, organization, or other, including subcategories such as organ injury, arrhythmia, or instrument failure. They further descriptively analyzed subcategories of all iAEs. Postoperative complications were assessed using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI(®)), a weighted sum of all postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The association of iAE origins in addition to the severity grade of ClassIntra(®) on CCI(®) was assessed with a multivariable mixed-effects generalized linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 2520 included patients, 778 iAEs were recorded in 610 patients. The origin was surgical in 420 (54%), anesthesia in 283 (36%), organizational in 34 (4%), and other in 41 (5%) events. Bleeding (n = 217, 28%), hypotension (n = 118, 15%), and organ injury (n = 98, 13%) were the three most frequent subcategories in surgery and anesthesia, respectively. In the multivariable mixed-effect analysis, no significant association between the origin and CCI(®) was observed. CONCLUSION: Analyzing the type and origin of an iAE offers individualized and contextualized information. This detailed descriptive information can be used for targeted surveillance of intra- and postoperative care, even though the overall predictive value for postoperative events was not improved by adding the origin in addition to the severity grade

Clinical adhesion score (CLAS): development of a novel clinical score for adhesion-related complications in abdominal and pelvic surgery

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Adhesions are a major cause of long-term postsurgical complications in abdominal and pelvic surgery. Existing adhesion scores primarily measure morphological characteristics of adhesions that do not necessarily correlate with morbidity. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical adhesion score (CLAS) measuring overall clinical morbidity of adhesion-related complications in abdominal and pelvic surgery. METHODS: An international Delphi study was performed to identify relevant score items for adhesion-related complications, including small bowel obstruction, female infertility, chronic abdominal or pelvic pain, and difficulties at reoperation. The CLAS includes clinical outcomes, related to morbidity of adhesions, and weight factors, to correct the outcome scores for the likelihood that symptoms are truly caused by adhesions. In a pilot study, two independent researchers retrospectively scored the CLAS in 51 patients to evaluate inter-observer reliability, by calculating the Intraclass correlation coefficient. During a feasibility assessment, we evaluated whether the CLAS completely covered different clinical scenarios of adhesion-related morbidity. RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds were performed. 43 experts agreed to participate, 38(88%) completed the first round, and 32 (74%) the third round. Consensus was reached on 83.4% of items. Inter-observer reliability for the CLAS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.97). During feasibility assessment, six items were included. As a result, the CLAS includes 22 outcomes and 23 weight factors. CONCLUSION: The CLAS represents a promising scoring system to measure and monitor the clinical morbidity of adhesion-related complications. Further studies are needed to confirm its utility in clinical practice

Clinical adhesion score (CLAS): development of a novel clinical score for adhesion-related complications in abdominal and pelvic surgery

Background: Adhesions are a major cause of long-term postsurgical complications in abdominal and pelvic surgery. Existing adhesion scores primarily measure morphological characteristics of adhesions that do not necessarily correlate with morbidity. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical adhesion score (CLAS) measuring overall clinical morbidity of adhesion-related complications in abdominal and pelvic surgery. Methods: An international Delphi study was performed to identify relevant score items for adhesion-related complications, including small bowel obstruction, female infertility, chronic abdominal or pelvic pain, and difficulties at reoperation. The CLAS includes clinical outcomes, related to morbidity of adhesions, and weight factors, to correct the outcome scores for the likelihood that symptoms are truly caused by adhesions. In a pilot study, two independent researchers retrospectively scored the CLAS in 51 patients to evaluate inter-observer reliability, by calculating the Intraclass correlation coefficient. During a feasibility assessment, we evaluated whether the CLAS completely covered different clinical scenarios of adhesion-related morbidity. Results: Three Delphi rounds were performed. 43 experts agreed to participate, 38(88%) completed the first round, and 32 (74%) the third round. Consensus was reached on 83.4% of items. Inter-observer reliability for the CLAS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91\u20130.97). During feasibility assessment, six items were included. As a result, the CLAS includes 22 outcomes and 23 weight factors. Conclusion: The CLAS represents a promising scoring system to measure and monitor the clinical morbidity of adhesion-related complications. Further studies are needed to confirm its utility in clinical practice

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis.

AIM: Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a meta-analysis of all available prospective data. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grades III-V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. RESULTS: This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery for malignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49-2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: A prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

Aim Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a metaanalysis of all available prospective data. Methods This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien\u2013Dindo Grades III\u2013V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery formalignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49\u20132.96, P &lt; 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46\u20130.75, P &lt; 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: A prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

Aim Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a metaanalysis of all available prospective data. Methods This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien–Dindo Grades III–V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery formalignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49–2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease