In search of a single standardised system for reporting complications in craniofacial surgery : a comparison of three different classifications
(2019) In Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery 53(6). p.321-327- Abstract
Comparing complication rates between centres is difficult due to the lack of unanimous criteria regarding what adverse events should be defined as complications and how these events should be compiled. This study analysed all adverse events in a cohort of craniofacial (CF) operations over a 10-year period and applied three different scales (Clavien-Dindo, Leeds and Oxford) for systematic comparison. A total of 1023 consecutive CF procedures in 641 patients was identified. The Clavien-Dindo scale captured 74 complications in 74 procedures (7.2%), whereas the Leeds and Oxford scales captured 163 complications in 134 procedures (13.1%) and 85 complications in 83 procedures (8.1%), respectively. The Clavien-Dindo scale appeared less... (More)
Comparing complication rates between centres is difficult due to the lack of unanimous criteria regarding what adverse events should be defined as complications and how these events should be compiled. This study analysed all adverse events in a cohort of craniofacial (CF) operations over a 10-year period and applied three different scales (Clavien-Dindo, Leeds and Oxford) for systematic comparison. A total of 1023 consecutive CF procedures in 641 patients was identified. The Clavien-Dindo scale captured 74 complications in 74 procedures (7.2%), whereas the Leeds and Oxford scales captured 163 complications in 134 procedures (13.1%) and 85 complications in 83 procedures (8.1%), respectively. The Clavien-Dindo scale appeared less suitable for CF surgery, because it is predominantly adapted to severe complications and also regards blood transfusion as a complication. The Leeds scale provided a detailed picture of all complications, as well as minor events, whereas the Oxford scale captured all major complications well but applied less accurate definitions for the minor events. Our findings contribute to the benchmarking of complications between CF centres and suggest that both the Leeds and the Oxford scale appear relevant, depending on the emphasis required for major and minor complications and inter-centre audits, respectively.
(Less)
- author
- Paganini, Anna LU ; Bhatti-Söfteland, Madiha ; Fischer, Sara ; Kölby, David ; Hansson, Emma LU ; O'Hara, Justine ; Maltese, Giovanni ; Tarnow, Peter and Kölby, Lars
- publishing date
- 2019-06-12
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
- volume
- 53
- issue
- 6
- pages
- 321 - 327
- publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85068261509
- pmid:31187676
- ISSN
- 2000-656X
- DOI
- 10.1080/2000656X.2019.1626736
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- c6fc286a-c013-4c77-8777-feaa84cd7450
- date added to LUP
- 2019-06-21 17:42:30
- date last changed
- 2024-04-30 14:04:23
@article{c6fc286a-c013-4c77-8777-feaa84cd7450,
abstract = {{<p>Comparing complication rates between centres is difficult due to the lack of unanimous criteria regarding what adverse events should be defined as complications and how these events should be compiled. This study analysed all adverse events in a cohort of craniofacial (CF) operations over a 10-year period and applied three different scales (Clavien-Dindo, Leeds and Oxford) for systematic comparison. A total of 1023 consecutive CF procedures in 641 patients was identified. The Clavien-Dindo scale captured 74 complications in 74 procedures (7.2%), whereas the Leeds and Oxford scales captured 163 complications in 134 procedures (13.1%) and 85 complications in 83 procedures (8.1%), respectively. The Clavien-Dindo scale appeared less suitable for CF surgery, because it is predominantly adapted to severe complications and also regards blood transfusion as a complication. The Leeds scale provided a detailed picture of all complications, as well as minor events, whereas the Oxford scale captured all major complications well but applied less accurate definitions for the minor events. Our findings contribute to the benchmarking of complications between CF centres and suggest that both the Leeds and the Oxford scale appear relevant, depending on the emphasis required for major and minor complications and inter-centre audits, respectively.</p>}},
author = {{Paganini, Anna and Bhatti-Söfteland, Madiha and Fischer, Sara and Kölby, David and Hansson, Emma and O'Hara, Justine and Maltese, Giovanni and Tarnow, Peter and Kölby, Lars}},
issn = {{2000-656X}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{06}},
number = {{6}},
pages = {{321--327}},
publisher = {{Taylor & Francis}},
series = {{Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery}},
title = {{In search of a single standardised system for reporting complications in craniofacial surgery : a comparison of three different classifications}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2019.1626736}},
doi = {{10.1080/2000656X.2019.1626736}},
volume = {{53}},
year = {{2019}},
}