Advanced

In search of a single standardised system for reporting complications in craniofacial surgery : a comparison of three different classifications

Paganini, Anna LU ; Bhatti-Söfteland, Madiha ; Fischer, Sara ; Kölby, David ; Hansson, Emma LU ; O'Hara, Justine ; Maltese, Giovanni ; Tarnow, Peter and Kölby, Lars (2019) In Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery p.1-7
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)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
in
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
pages
7 pages
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
2020-01-13 02:04:36
@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},
  pages        = {1--7},
  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},
  year         = {2019},
}