ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparing the Reliability of a Web-based Intraoperative Adverse Event Assessment Tool With Standard Cognitive Grading. The Intraoperative Complication Assessment and Reporting With Universal Standards - Calculator (ICARUS-C)
Correlation of Cardiac Index Measured by the Pressure Recording Analytical Method (PRAM) With Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) and Arterial Lactate Levels in Neonates and Infants Undergoing Surgical Repair of Aortic Coarctation: A Prospective Observational Study
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Objective assessment of surgical operative performance by observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA): a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Trial
- Development of a robotic training curriculum for visceral and gastrointestinal surgical trainees: an international Delphi study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Development of a robotic training curriculum for visceral and gastrointestinal surgical trainees: an international Delphi study.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Endoshare: a publicly available, surgeons-friendly solution to de-identify and manage surgical videos.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Development of a Robotic Training Curriculum for Visceral and Gastrointestinal Surgical Trainees: An International Delphi Study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
- Association of skill and errors with outcomes in robotic rectal cancer surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Chronic kidney disease status and intraoperative adverse events during partial nephrectomy: a propensity-score matched study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Analyzing the impact of surgical technique on intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery by video-based assessment.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A Rectal Cancer Surgery Dataset: Use of artificial intelligence to aid automation of error identification.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Deep learning prediction of error and skill in robotic prostatectomy suturing.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Surgical optomics: hyperspectral imaging and deep learning towards precision intraoperative automatic tissue recognition-results from the EX-MACHYNA trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Observational
- The clinical significance of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- The application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in the assessment of basic robotic surgical skills.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Active learning for extracting surgomic features in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a prospective annotation study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Appraisal of Intraoperative Adverse Events to Improve Postoperative Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Surgomics: personalized prediction of morbidity, mortality and long-term outcome in surgery using machine learning on multimodal data.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical 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.
methodsA 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.
results217 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.
conclusionA clinically applicable intraoperative adverse event classification, which is acceptable to expert surgeons, is reported and complements the objective assessment of minimal access surgical performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29435754What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.