Impact of Implementation of Standardized Criteria in the Assessment of Complication Reporting After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review

• Published in: European urology focus 2020-05, Vol.6 (3), p.513-517
• Main Authors: Cacciamani, Giovanni E., Medina, Luis G., Tafuri, Alessandro, Gill, Tania, Baccaglini, Willy, Blasic, Vanessa, Glina, Felipe P.A., De Castro Abreu, Andre L., Sotelo, René, Gill, Inderbir S., Artibani, Walter
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Complication; European Association of Urology guidelines; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Nephrectomy - methods; Outcome reporting; Postoperative Complications; Research Report - standards; Robotic partial nephrectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
• ISSN: 2405-4569; 2405-4569
• DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.12.004

The definition of a surgical complication still lacks standardization, hampering an evaluation of surgical performance on this regard. Over the years, efforts to address this issue has been carried out to improve outcomes reporting. In 2012, the European Urological Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a standardized reporting tool for urological complications. Our analysis showed an improvement of complication reporting and grading after the EAU GLs recommendation. The importance of choosing the correct outcome reporting tool is of paramount importance. Same data could lead to two completely different sets of information, highlighting the importance of standardization in medicine in order to avoid misleading information. In absence of the correct tool, we could not be too far from fake data reporting. The definition of a surgical complication still lacks standardization, hampering evaluation of surgical performance in this regard. Over the years, efforts to address this issue have been carried out to improve reporting of outcomes. In 2012, the European Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a standardized reporting tool for urological complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of those recommendations on complication reporting for patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). A comprehensive systematic review of all English language publications on RPN was carried out. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines in evaluating articles retrieved from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2016; updated June 2017). The quality of reporting and grading complications was assessed according to the EAU recommendations. Temporal comparison revealed an improvement in outcome reporting in terms of mortality rates and causes of death (p=0.05), definition of complications (p