Introduction

1. No. 027 Use of Clavien-Dindo Classification in reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures; Analysis of 2010-2012 Peter D Yoon, VenuChalasani, Henry H Woo The University of Sydney Posters Proudly Supported by: Introduction Post-operative complications are an important measure in determining successful outcome and quality of surgery. The absence of standardised guidelines for reporting surgical complications in the urological literature has made it difficult for readers to interpret these studies objectively. Recent European Association of Urology recommendations by Mitropoulos et al 1, compared the use of reporting systems between 1999-2000 and 2009-2010 showing a shift towards the use of standardised complication reporting systems, such as the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC), after urologic procedures. Its use is expected to have increased since the publication. Results 907 articles reported surgical outcomes. 137 articles reported ‘no complications’. 'Descriptive classification' was the most common method comprising 62.7% (483/770) followed by CDC of 33.3% (256/770) and other classifications comprised 4.0% (31/770) (Table 1). The use of CDC in articles from all five journals that discussed surgical outcomes increased from 21.4% in 2010 to 50.2 % in 2012 (Table 2). The use of any standardised criteria in surgical outcome reporting was 37.3% (287/770) in the 2010-2012 period, and of those that used surgical outcome reporting, CDC was used in 89.5% of articles (256/287). Table 1: Use of different surgical complication classification by journals; 2010-2012 (EU: European Urology, JU: Journal of Urology, Uro: Urology, IJU: International Journal of Urology, CTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, IUGA: International Urogynecological Association, ICD: International Classification of Diseases, MSKCC: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre) (*: One article reporting surgical outcomes using both CDC and MSKCC was recorded as MSKCC) Table 2: Use of CDC in all articles reporting surgical outcomes by journals Aim To determine the use of Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) in urological papers and to assess the recent trend in use of different post-operative complication reporting classifications by major journal authors since 2010. Methods All articles from five major urological journals (European Urology, Journal of Urology, Urology, BJU International, and International Journal of Urology) published between Jan 2010 and Oct 2012 were reviewed.All studies reporting surgical outcomes were included and were individually assessed by retrieval of the full text. Use of different complication classifications were recorded with particular emphasis on use of CDC. Conclusions Increasing use of classification systems was seen in the most recently published articles. When a classification system was adopted by authors, CDC was chosen most frequently. While there is a rise in the use of standardised reporting systems in articles reporting surgical complications, there is still room for increased implementation. References 1. Mitropoulos D, Walter A, Graefen M et al. Reporting and Grading of Complications After Urologic Surgical Procedures: An ad hoc EAU Guidelines Panel Assessment and Recommendations. EurUrol 2012; 61: 341-349.