Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

TL;DR: The new complication classification appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery in all parts of the world.

Abstract: Growing demand for health care, rising costs, constrained resources, and evidence of variations in clinical practice have triggered interest in measuring and improving the quality of health care delivery. For a valuable quality assessment, relevant data on outcome must be obtained in a standardized and reproducible manner to allow comparison among different centers, between different therapies and within a center over time.1–3 Objective and reliable outcome data are increasingly requested by patients and payers (government or private insurance) to assess quality and costs of health care. Moreover, health policy makers point out that the availability of comparative data on individual hospital's and physician's performance represents a powerful market force, which may contribute to limit the costs of health care while improving quality.4 Conclusive assessments of surgical procedures remain limited by the lack of consensus on how to define complications and to stratify them by severity.1,5–8 In 1992, we proposed general principles to classify complications of surgery based on a therapy-oriented, 4-level severity grading.1 Subsequently, the severity grading was refined and applied to compare the results of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy9 and liver transplantation.10 This classification has also been used by others11–13 and was recently suggested to serve as the basis to assess the outcome of living related liver transplantation in the United States (J. Trotter, personal communication). However, the classification system has not yet been widely used in the surgical literature. The strength of the previous classification relied on the principle of grading complications based on the therapy used to treat the complication. This approach allows identification of most complications and prevents down-rating of major negative outcomes. This is particularly important in retrospective analyses. However, we felt that modifications were necessary, particularly in grading life-threatening complications and long-term disability due to a complication. We also felt that the duration of the hospital stay can no longer be used as a criterion to grade complications. Although definitions of negative outcomes rely to a large extend on subjective “value” appraisals, the grading system must be tested in a large cohort of patients. Finally, a classification is useful only if widely accepted and applied throughout different countries and surgical cultures. Such a validation was not done with the previous classification. Therefore, the aim of the current study was 3-fold: first, to propose an improved classification of surgical complications based on our experience gained with the previous classification1; second, to test this classification in a large cohort of patients who underwent general surgery; and third, to assess the reproducibility and acceptability of the classification through an international survey.