STUDY QUESTION: What is the additional value of the comprehensive complication index (CCI) and ClassIntra system (classification for intraoperative adverse events (ioAEs)) in adverse event (AE) reporting in (deep) endometriosis (DE) surgery compared to only using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CCI and ClassIntra are useful additional tools alongside the CD system for a complete and uniform overview of the total AE burden in patients with extensive surgery (such as DE), and with this uniform data registration, it is possible to provide greater insight into the quality of care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Uniform comparison of AEs reported in the literature is hampered by scattered registration. In endometriosis surgery, the usage of the CD complication system and the CCI is internationally recommended; however, the CCI is not routinely adapted in endometriosis care and research. Furthermore, a recommendation for ioAEs registration in endometriosis surgery is lacking, although this is vital information in surgical quality assessments. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective mono-center study was conducted with 870 surgical DE cases from a nonuniversity DE expertise center between February 2019 and December 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Endometriosis cases were collected with the EQUSUM system, a publicly available web-based application for registration of surgical procedures for endometriosis. Postoperative adverse events (poAEs) were classified with the CD complication system and CCI. Differences in reporting and classifying AEs between the CCI and the CD were assessed. ioAEs were assessed with the ClassIntra. The primary outcome measure was to assess the additional value toward the CD classification with the introduction of the CCI and ClassIntra. In addition, we report a benchmark for the CCI in DE surgery. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 870 DE procedures were registered, of which 145 procedures with one or more poAEs, resulting in a poAE rate of 16.7% (145/870), of which in 36 cases (4.1%), the poAE was classified as severe (Grade 3b). The median CCI (interquartile range) of patients with poAEs was 20.9 (20.9-31.7) and 33.7 (33.7-39.7) in the group of patients with severe poAEs. In 20 patients (13.8%), the CCI was higher than the CD because of multiple poAEs. There were 11 ioAEs reported (11/870, 1.3%) in all procedures, mostly minor and directly repaired serosa injuries. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was conducted at a single center; thus, trends in AE rates and type of AEs could differ from other centers. Furthermore, no conclusion could be drawn on ioAEs in relation to the postoperative course because the power of this database is not robust enough for that purpose. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: From our data, we would advise to use the Clavien-Dindo classification system together with the CCI and ClassIntra for a complete overview of AE registration. The CCI appeared to provide a more complete overview of the total burden of poAEs compared to only reporting the most severe poAEs (as with CD). If the use of the CD, CCI, and ClassIntra is widely adapted, uniform data comparison will be possible at (inter)national level, providing better insight into the quality of care. Our data could be used as a first benchmark for other DE centers to optimize information provision in the shared decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the added value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after dynamic transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) in the diagnostic pathway for preoperative staging of pelvic endometriosis. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted between April 22, 2014, and May 1, 2015. During that period, 363 patients with a clinical suspicion of endometriosis were included. All patients underwent a history, clinical examination, and dynamic TVUS examination. Most of the patients (n = 274) underwent conservative treatment according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology guidelines. Eighty-nine patients were selected for surgery, of whom 72 patients underwent the complete diagnostic pathway: ie, history, clinical examination, dynamic TVUS, and MRI. All data were analyzed by the nonparametric McNemar test for comparing each step in the diagnostic algorithm. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for the history, pelvic examination, and dynamic TVUS were 93.7% and 55.6% (P < .001), respectively; when MRI findings were included, the sensitivity and specificity were 85.9% and 62.5%. Adding MRI routinely to the diagnostic procedure of endometriosis did not significantly improve the sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant added value of routine MRI after dynamic TVUS for the preoperative staging of endometriosis.

Background: During the implementation of new interventions (i.e., surgical devices and technologies) in the operating room, surgical safety might be compromised. Current safety measures are insufficient in detecting safety hazards during this process. The aim of the study was to observe whether surgical teams are capable of measuring surgical safety, especially with regard to the introduction of new interventions. Methods: A Surgical Safety Questionnaire was developed that had to be filled out directly postoperative by three surgical team members. A potential safety concern was defined as at least one answer between (strongly) disagree and indifferent. The validity of the questionnaire was assessed by comparison with the results from video analysis. Two different observers annotated the presence and effect of surgical flow disturbances during 40 laparoscopic hysterectomies performed between November 2010 and April 2012. Results: The surgeon reported a potential safety concern in 16% (85/520 questions). With respect to the scrub nurse and anesthesiologist, this was both 9% (46/520). With respect to the preparation, functioning, and ease of use of the devices in 37.5–47.5% (15–19/40 procedures) a potential safety concern was reported by one or more team members. During procedures after which a potential safety concern was reported, surgical flow disturbances lasted a higher percentage of the procedure duration [9.3 ± 6.2 vs. 2.9 ± 3.7% (mean ± SD), p < .001]. After procedures during which a new instrument or device was used, more potential safety concerns were reported (51.2 vs. 23.1%, p < .001). Conclusions: Potential safety concerns were especially reported during procedures in which a relatively high percentage of the duration consisted of surgical flow disturbances and during procedures in which a new instrument or device was used. The Surgical Safety Questionnaire can act as a validated tool to evaluate and maintain surgical safety during minimally invasive procedures, especially during the introduction of a new intervention.

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is frequently compromised by surgical flow disturbances due to technology- and equipment-related failures. Compared with MIS in a conventional cart-based OR, performing MIS in a dedicated integrated operating room (OR) is supposed to be beneficial to patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare a conventional OR with an integrated OR with regard to the incidence and effect of equipment-related surgical flow disturbances during an advanced laparoscopic gynecological procedure [laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)]. Methods: Using video recording, 40 LHs performed between November 2010 and April 2012 (20 in a conventional cart-based OR and 20 in an integrated OR) were analyzed by two different observers. Outcome measures were the number, duration and effect (on a seven-point ordinal scale) of the surgical flow disturbances (e.g., malfunctioning, intraoperative repositioning, setup device). Results: A total of 103 h and 45 min was observed. The interobserver agreement was high (kappa .85, p <.001). Procedure time was not significantly different (NS) [conventional OR vs. integrated OR, minutes ± standard deviation (SD), mean 161 ± 27 vs. 150 ± 34]. A total of 1651 surgical flow disturbances were observed (mean ± SD per procedure 40.8 ± 19.4 vs. 41.8 ± 15.9, NS). The mean number of surgical flow disturbances per procedure with regard to equipment was 6.3 ± 3.7 versus 8.5 ± 4.0, NS. No clinically relevant differences in the mean effect of these disturbances on the surgical flow between the two OR setups were observed. Conclusions: Performing LH in an integrated OR did not reduce the number of surgical flow disturbances nor the effect of these disturbances. Furthermore, in the integrated OR, repositioning of the monitors was a frequent and time-consuming source of disturbance. In order to maintain the high standard of surgical safety, the entire surgical team has to be aware that by performing surgery in an integrated OR different potential source for disruption arise.