Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria

701Citations
Citations of this article
287Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Prior to publication of the Clavien-Dindo classification in 2004, there were no grading definitions for surgical complications in either clinical practice or surgical trials. This report establishes supplementary criteria for this classification to standardize the evaluation of postoperative complications in clinical trials. Methods: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) commissioned a committee. Members from nine surgical study groups (gastric, esophageal, colorectal, lung, breast, gynecologic, urologic, bone and soft tissue, and brain) specified postoperative complications experienced commonly in their fields and defined more detailed grading criteria for each complication in accordance with the general grading rules of the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: We listed 72 surgical complications experienced commonly in surgical trials, focusing on 17 gastroenterologic complications, 13 infectious complications, six thoracic complications, and several other complications. The grading criteria were defined simply and were optimized for surgical complications. Conclusions: The JCOG postoperative complications criteria (JCOG PC criteria) aim to standardize the terms used to define adverse events (AEs) and provide detailed grading guidelines based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. We believe that the JCOG PC criteria will allow for more precise comparisons of the frequency of postoperative complications among trials across many different surgical fields.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Katayama, H., Kurokawa, Y., Nakamura, K., Ito, H., Kanemitsu, Y., Masuda, N., … Sasako, M. (2016). Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surgery Today, 46(6), 668–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-015-1236-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free