Advertisement

Standards for Surgical Complication Reporting in Urologic Oncology: Time for a Change

  • Sherri Machele Donat
    Correspondence
    Reprint requests: S. Machele Donat, M.D., Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021.
    Affiliations
    Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
    Search for articles by this author

      Objectives

      No standards for reporting surgical morbidity exist in the urologic oncology literature, yet surgical outcomes are used to assess the success of surgical techniques and surgeon competency. This study analyzes the quality of complication reporting in the urologic literature.

      Methods

      Reports identified by a MEDLINE search reporting surgical outcomes after radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, retroperitoneal node dissection, and radical/partial nephrectomy were analyzed using 10 established criteria for surgical complication reporting. Open (n = 73) and minimally invasive (n = 36) surgical series of 50 patients or more published from January 1995 to December 2005 were reviewed.

      Results

      A total of 109 studies reporting the outcomes for 146,961 patients, including 95 retrospective (87%), 11 prospective (10%), 1 randomized (1%), and 2 population-based (2%) studies were analyzed. Of the 10 critical reporting elements, 2% met 9 to 10, 21% met 7 to 8, 43% met 5 to 6, 30% met 3 to 4, and 4% met 1 to 2 criteria. The most commonly underreported criteria were complication definitions in 79%, complication severity/grade in 67%, outpatient data in 63%, comorbidities in 59%, and the duration of the reporting period in 56%. Additionally, 47% of minimally invasive surgical series met fewer than 5 of the 10 reporting criteria compared with 28% of open series. Of the 36 studies reporting complication severity, a numeric grading system was used in 7 (19%), with 29 (81%) of 36 using a “major versus minor” categorization but using 26 different definitions of what constituted “major.”

      Conclusions

      The disparity in the quality of surgical complication reporting in urologic oncology makes it impossible to compare the morbidity of surgical techniques and outcomes. Standard guidelines need to be established.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Martin R.C.G.
        • Brennan M.F.
        • Jaques D.P.
        Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature.
        Ann Surg. 2002; 235: 803-813
        • Trotti A.
        • Colevas A.D.
        • Setser A.
        • et al.
        CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for adverse events of cancer treatment.
        Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003; 13: 176-181
        • Khuri S.F.
        The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery.
        Surgery. 2005; 138: 837-843
        • Hollenbeck B.K.
        • Miller D.C.
        • Taub D.
        • et al.
        Identifying risk factors for potentially avoidable complications following radical cystectomy.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 1231-1237
        • Corman J.M.
        • Penson D.F.
        • Hur K.
        • et al.
        Comparison of complications after radical and partial nephrectomy: results from the National Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program.
        BJU Int. 2000; 86: 782-789
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.A.
        Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213
        • Pomposelli J.
        • Gupta S.
        • Zacharoulis D.C.
        • et al.
        Surgical complication outcome (SCOUT) score: a new method to evaluate quality of care in vascular surgery.
        J Vasc Surg. 1997; 25: 1007-1015
        • Stephenson A.J.
        • Ari Hakimi A.
        • Snyder M.E.
        • et al.
        Complications of radical and partial nephrectomy in a large contemporary cohort.
        J Urol. 2004; 173: 130-134
        • Guillonneau B.
        • Rozet F.
        • Cathelineau X.
        • et al.
        Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience.
        J Urol. 2002; 167: 51-56
        • Levy D.A.
        • Swanson D.A.
        • Slaton J.W.
        • et al.
        Timely delivery of biologic therapy after cytoreductive nephrectomy in carefully selected patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.
        J Urol. 1998; 159: 168-173
        • Heidenreich A.
        • Albers P.
        • Hartmann M.
        • et al.
        Complications of primary nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: experience of the German Testicular Cancer Study group.
        J Urol. 2003; 169: 1710-1714
        • Koch M.O.
        • Smith Jr, J.A.
        Influence of patient age and comorbidity on outcome of a collaborative care pathway after radical prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy.
        J Urol. 1996; 155: 1681-1684
        • Dillioglugil O.
        • Leibman B.D.
        • Leibman N.S.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for complications for morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 1997; 157: 1760-1767
        • Lee K.L.
        • Freiha F.
        • Presti Jr, J.C.
        • et al.
        Gender differences in radical cystectomy: complications and blood loss.
        Urology. 2004; 63: 1095-1099
        • Parekh D.J.
        • Clark T.
        • O’Connor J.
        • et al.
        Orthotopic neobladder following radical cystectomy in patients with high perioperative risk and comorbid medical conditions.
        J Urol. 2002; 168: 2454-2456
        • Cookson M.S.
        • Chang S.S.
        • Wells N.
        • et al.
        Complications of radical cystectomy for nonmuscle invasive disease: comparison with muscle invasive disease.
        J Urol. 2003; 169: 101-104
        • Chang S.S.
        • Cookson M.S.
        • Baumgartner R.G.
        • et al.
        Analysis of early complications after radical cystectomy: results of a collaborative care pathway.
        J Urol. 2002; 167: 2012-2016
        • Stephenson A.J.
        • Scardino P.T.
        • Bianco F.J.
        • et al.
        Morbidity and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 2239-2243
        • Lee C.T.
        • Dunn R.L.
        • Chen B.T.
        • et al.
        Impact of body mass index on radical cystectomy.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 1281-1285
        • Gonzalgo M.L.
        • Pavlovich P.
        • Trock B.J.
        • et al.
        Classification and trends of perioperative morbidities following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 135-139
        • Bhandari A.
        • McIntire L.
        • Kaul S.A.
        • et al.
        Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 915-918