Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

How to document and report orthopedic complications in clinical studies? A proposal for standardization

  • Osteoporotic Fracture Management
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The documentation of complications is critical for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in orthopedics. However, there is a lack of accepted methodological standardization and definitions. We propose a concept to support the consensus development of a standardized management and classification of complications in clinical research.

Methods

Complication events are examined regarding their clinical presentation, their timing of occurrence as well as their potential causal interrelationship for any given patient. Their clinical presentation is distinguished by their likely triggers, their therapeutic management, and their outcome. Complications are events (including relevant deviations from their expected healing process) that are harmful to patients and can be described as local to the treated injury/disease or systemic (when they affect the rest of the body). The treatment of a complication, e.g. by way of an unplanned surgical intervention, and its outcome should be carefully documented. Complication review boards with independent clinicians should be established to validate complication records.

Application and relevance

In this proposal, a number of complication examples are presented to illustrate the concept and demonstrate its practical use. This management and classification system has already proven valuable in the documentation and analysis of complication data from a number of published clinical studies. Because of this new standardized assessment process, it facilitates the communication of complications between clinicians and researchers, and helps to develop clear definitions for specific orthopedic complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heim D, Stricker U, Negri M (2002) Interdisciplinary complications conference—also a (simple) kind of quality assurance. Swiss Surg 8:243–249 (German)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. International Organization for Standardization ISO_14155 (2011) Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects. Good clinical practice. International Standard Organization

  3. Bhandari M, Giannoudis PV (2006) Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it is not. Injury 37:302–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hanson BP (2006) Designing, conducting and reporting clinical research. A step by step approach. Injury 37:583–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (2005) Evidence-based medicine—how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Suk M, Norvell DC, Hanson B, Dettori JR, Helfet D (2008) Evidence-based orthopaedic surgery: what is evidence without the outcomes? J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:123–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Audigé L, Hanson B, Swiontkowski MF (2003) Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices. Int Orthop 27:197–203

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS (1995) Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. Spine 20:1055–1060

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldhahn S, Sawaguchi T, Audigé L, Mundi R, Hanson B, Bhandari M (2009) Complication reporting in orthopedic trials: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1847–1853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Donawa M (2005) US and European postmarket clinical data requirements. Med Device Technol 16:19–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldhahn S, Audigé L, Nakamura N, Goldhahn J (2011) Reporting of complications in clinical trials (section 17). Arthroscopy (Suppl 2):S92–S96

  12. Agneskirchner JD, Hurschler C, Wrann CD, Lobenhoffer P (2007) The effects of valgus medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy on articular cartilage pressure of the knee: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 23:852–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brinkman JM, Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner JD, Staubli AE, Wymenga AB, van Heerwaarden RJ (2008) Osteotomies around the knee: patient selection, stability of fixation and bone healing in high tibial osteotomies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1548–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Keppler P, Gebhard F, Grutzner PA, Wang G, Zheng G, Hufner T, Hankemeier S, Nolte LP (2004) Computer aided high tibial open wedge osteotomy. Injury 35:S-A68–S-A78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Audigé L, Griffin D, Bhandari M, Kellam J, Ruedi TP (2005) Path analysis of factors for delayed healing and nonunion in 416 operatively treated tibial shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:221–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. http://www.meddramsso.com/index.asp (Accessed 28.02.2011)

  17. US Food and Drug Administration (2006) Guidance for clinical trial sponsors. Establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees. Center for Biologics Evaluation Research

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all the surgeons involved in clinical trials with AO Clinical Investigation and Documentation, as they have indirectly contributed to the development of this concept for a standardized documentation and reporting of complications in orthopedic surgery.

Conflict of interest

The authors are not supported by a specific grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurent Audigé.

Additional information

L. Audigé and S. Goldhahn contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Audigé, L., Goldhahn, S., Daigl, M. et al. How to document and report orthopedic complications in clinical studies? A proposal for standardization. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 269–275 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1384-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1384-4

Keywords

Navigation