Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 9, pp 3822–3829 | Cite as

EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery

  • N. K. Francis
  • N. J. Curtis
  • J. A. Conti
  • J. D. Foster
  • H. J. Bonjer
  • G. B. Hanna
  • on behalf of the EAES committees
Article

Abstract

Background

Surgical outcomes are traditionally evaluated by post-operative data such as histopathology and morbidity. Although these outcomes are reported using accepted systems, their ability to influence operative performance is limited by their retrospective application. Interest in direct measurement of intraoperative events is growing but no available systems applicable to routine practice exist. We aimed to develop a structured, practical method to report intraoperative adverse events enacted during minimal access surgical procedures.

Methods

A structured mixed methodology approach was adopted. Current intraoperative adverse event reporting practices and desirable system characteristics were sought through a survey of the EAES executive. The observational clinical human reliability analysis method was applied to a series of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) case videos to identify intraoperative adverse events. In keeping with survey results, observed events were further categorised into non-consequential and consequential, which were further subdivided into four levels based upon the principle of therapy required to correct the event. A second survey phase explored usability, acceptability, face and content validity of the novel classification.

Results

217 h of TME surgery were analysed to develop and continually refine the five-point hierarchical structure. 34 EAES expert surgeons (69%) responded. The lack of an accepted system was the main barrier to routine reporting. Simplicity, reproducibility and clinical utility were identified as essential requirements. The observed distribution of intraoperative adverse events was 60.1% grade I (non-consequential), 37.1% grade II (minor corrective action), 2.4% grade III (major correction or change in post-operative care) and 0.1% grade IV (life threatening). 84% agreed with the proposed classification (Likert scale 4.04) and 92% felt it was applicable to their practice and incorporated all desirable characteristics.

Conclusion

A clinically applicable intraoperative adverse event classification, which is acceptable to expert surgeons, is reported and complements the objective assessment of minimal access surgical performance.

Keywords

Adverse events Classification Laparoscopic Morbidity Intraoperative EAES 

Notes

Funding

EAES research grant awarded to NKF for the 2D/3D trial (ISRCTN59485808).

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Prof Francis, Mr Curtis, Mr Conti, Mr Foster, Prof Bonjer and Prof Hanna confirm they hold no conflicts of interest or financial ties in relation to this manuscript. All collaborative authors also confirm no financial ties or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2018_6108_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Markar SR, Wiggins T, Ni M, Steyerberg EW, Van Lanschot JJ, Sasako M et al (2015) Assessment of the quality of surgery within randomised controlled trials for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 16(1):e23–e31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    West NP, Morris EJ, Rotimi O, Cairns A, Finan PJ, Quirke P (2008) Pathology grading of colon cancer surgical resection and its association with survival: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 9(9):857–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertelsen CA, Neuenschwander AU, Jansen JE, Wilhelmsen M, Kirkegaard-Klitbo A, Tenma JR et al (2015) Disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional colon cancer surgery: a retrospective, population-based study. Lancet Oncol 16(2):161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuchs HF, Broderick RC, Harnsberger CR, Chang DC, McLemore EC, Ramamoorthy S et al (2015) Variation of outcome and charges in operative management for diverticulitis. Surg Endosc 29(11):3090–3096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aquina CT, Blumberg N, Probst CP, Becerra AZ, Hensley BJ, Noyes K et al (2016) Large variation in blood transfusion use after colorectal resection: a call to action. Dis Colon Rectum 59(5):411–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmed J, Khan S, Lim M, Chandrasekaran TV, MacFie J (2012) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols - compliance and variations in practice during routine colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 14(9):1045–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20(7):1729–1734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J et al (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373(9666):821–828CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rickles AS, Dietz DW, Chang GJ, Wexner SD, Berho ME, Remzi FH et al (2015) High rate of positive circumferential resection margins following rectal cancer surgery: a call to action. Ann Surg 262(6):891–898CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K, Perrakis A, Finan PJ, Quirke P (2010) Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon. J Clin Oncol 28(2):272–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C, Lindholm J, Holm T, Quirke P (2008) Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(21):3517–3522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ubbink DT, Visser A, Gouma DJ, Goslings JC (2012) Registration of surgical adverse outcomes: a reliability study in a university hospital. BMJ Open 2(3):e000891CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH (2001) The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technol Assess 5(22):1–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cuschieri A (2006) Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 244(5):642–648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Spall H, Kassam A, Tollefson TT (2015) Near-misses are an opportunity to improve patient safety: adapting strategies of high reliability organizations to healthcare. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 23(4):292–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Curtis NJ, Davids J, Foster JD, Francis NK (2017) Objective assessment of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision performance: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 21(4):259–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Foster JD, Francis NK (2015) Objective assessment of technique in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: what are the existing tools? Tech Coloproctol 19(1):1–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Parvaiz A, Hanna GB (2012) Observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) for competency assessment in laparoscopic colorectal surgery at the specialist level. Surg Endosc 26(3):796–803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mackenzie H, Ni M, Miskovic D, Motson RW, Gudgeon M, Khan Z et al (2015) Clinical validity of consultant technical skills assessment in the English National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Br J Surg 102(8):991–997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Kennedy RH, Francis NK, Parvaiz A et al (2013) Is competency assessment at the specialist level achievable? A study for the national training programme in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England. Ann Surg 257(3):476–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Foster JD, Mackenzie H, Nelson H, Hanna GB, Francis NK (2014) Methods of quality assurance in multicenter trials in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg 260(2):220–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    White AD, Skelton M, Mushtaq F, Pike TW, Mon-Williams M, Lodge JP et al (2015) Inconsistent reporting of minimally invasive surgery errors. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97(8):608–612CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Senders DM, Moray NP (1991) Human error: cause, prediction and reduction, 1 edn. CRC Press, Hillsdale, NJ, p 168Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery: a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29(6):409–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139(11):1215–1220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foster JD, Miskovic D, Allison AS, Conti JA, Ockrim J, Cooper EJ et al (2016) Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 20(6):361–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Carter F, Coleman MG, Hanna GB (2011) Development, validation and implementation of a monitoring tool for training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the English National Training Program. Surg Endosc 25(4):1136–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Tekkis P, Hanna GB (2012) Learning curve and case selection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and international multicenter analysis of 4852 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 55(12):1300–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foster JD, Ewings P, Falk S, Cooper EJ, Roach H, West NP et al. (2016) Surgical timing after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer, analysis of technique (STARRCAT): results of a feasibility multi-centre randomized controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 20(10):683–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Rutte P, Nienhuijs SW, Jakimowicz JJ, van Montfort G (2017) Identification of technical errors and hazard zones in sleeve gastrectomy using OCHRA: “OCHRA for sleeve gastrectomy”. Surg Endosc 31(2):561–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NM, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc 18(12):1716–1720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1346–1355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Mentha G, Borst F, Buhler L, Roche B et al (1992) Recent results of elective open cholecystectomy in a North American and a European center. Comparison of complications and risk factors. Ann Surg 216(6):618–626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Howell AM, Burns EM, Bouras G, Donaldson LJ, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2015) Can patient safety incident reports be used to compare hospital safety? Results from a quantitative analysis of the English national reporting and learning system Data. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, Petersen RH, Ostergaard D (2016) Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(12):5185–5199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryYeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher KingstonYeovilUK
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of BathBathUK
  3. 3.Department of Surgery and CancerImperial College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Colorectal SurgeryQueen Alexandra HospitalPortsmouthUK
  5. 5.Academic Surgical UnitUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryVU University Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations