World journal of surgery · 2016
Where Oncologic and Surgical Complication Scoring Systems Collide: Time for a New Consensus for CRS/HIPEC.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lehmann Kuno, Eshmuminov Dilmurodjon, Slankamenac Ksenija, Kranzbühler Benedict, Clavien Pierre-Alain, Vonlanthen René, Gertsch Philippe
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Morbidity and mortality rates after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are important quality parameters to compare peritoneal surface malignancy centers. A major problem to assess postoperative outcomes among centers is the inconsistent reporting due to two coexisting systems, the diagnose-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) classification and the therapy-oriented Clavien-Dindo classification. We therefore assessed and compared both reporting systems.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Complications after CRS/HIPEC were recorded in 147 consecutive patients and independently graded by an expert board using both systems. In a next step, a group of residents, experienced surgeons, and medical oncologists evaluated a set of twelve real complications, either with the Clavien-Dindo or CTCAE classification.
RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 37 % (54/147), 6.8 % (10/147) were reoperated, and three (2 %) patients died. The most frequent complications were intestinal fistula or abscess, pulmonary complications, and ileus. Grading of complications with the CTCAE classification resulted in a significantly higher major morbidity rate compared to the Clavien-Dindo classification (25 vs. 8 %, p = 0.001). Evaluating a set of complications, residents, surgeons, and oncologists correctly assessed significantly more complications with the Clavien-Dindo compared to the CTCEA classification (p < 0.001). In addition, all participants evaluated the Clavien-Dindo classification as more simple. Residents (p < 0.001) and surgeons (p < 0.01) required less time with the Clavien-Dindo classification; there was no difference for oncologist.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data indicate that there is a different interpretation of severity grades of complications after CRS/HIPEC between the two classifications. There is a need for a common language in the field of CRS/HIPEC, which should be defined by a new consensus to compare surgical outcomes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Complications after CRS/HIPEC were recorded in 147 consecutive patients and independently graded by an expert board using both systems. In a next step, a group of residents, experienced surgeons, and medical oncologists evaluated a set of twelve real complications, either with the Clavien-Dindo or CTCAE classification.
RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 37 % (54/147), 6.8 % (10/147) were reoperated, and three (2 %) patients died. The most frequent complications were intestinal fistula or abscess, pulmonary complications, and ileus. Grading of complications with the CTCAE classification resulted in a significantly higher major morbidity rate compared to the Clavien-Dindo classification (25 vs. 8 %, p = 0.001). Evaluating a set of complications, residents, surgeons, and oncologists correctly assessed significantly more complications with the Clavien-Dindo compared to the CTCEA classification (p < 0.001). In addition, all participants evaluated the Clavien-Dindo classification as more simple. Residents (p < 0.001) and surgeons (p < 0.01) required less time with the Clavien-Dindo classification; there was no difference for oncologist.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data indicate that there is a different interpretation of severity grades of complications after CRS/HIPEC between the two classifications. There is a need for a common language in the field of CRS/HIPEC, which should be defined by a new consensus to compare surgical outcomes.