Classification des complications en chirurgie plastique : proposition d’une évaluation objective des publications et des pratiques professionnelles

Systematic review of grading systems for adverse surgical outcomes

Background

Grading scales for adverse surgical outcomes have been poorly characterized to date. The primary aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to enumerate the various frameworks for grading adverse postoperative outcomes; our secondary objective was to outline the properties of each grading system, identifying its strengths and weaknesses.

Methods

We searched 9 databases (Africa Wide Information, Biosis, Cochrane, Embase, Global Health, LILACs, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science) from 1992 (the year the Clavien-Dindo classification system was developed) until Mar. 2, 2017, for studies that aimed to develop or improve on an already existing generalizable system for grading adverse postoperative outcomes. Study selection was duplicated as per PRISMA recommendations. Procedure-specific grading systems were excluded. We assessed the framework, strengths and weaknesses of the systems qualitatively.

Results

We identified 9 studies on 8 adverse outcome grading systems with frameworks generalizable to any surgical procedure. Most systems have not been widely incorporated in the literature. Seven of the 8 systems were produced without including patients' perspectives. Four allowed the derivation of a composite morbidity score, which had limited tangible significance for patients.

Conclusion

Although each instrument identified offered its own advantages, none satisfied the need for a patient-centred tool capable of generating a composite score of all possible postoperative adverse outcomes (complications, sequelae and failure) that enables comparison of noninterventional and surgical management of disease. There is a need for development of a more comprehensive, patient-centred grading system for adverse postoperative outcomes.

[The "two positions" lipoabdominoplasty]

BACKGROUNDS

Lipoabdominoplasty is a way to improve morphological outcomes by treating the areas not accessible to resection during classical abdominoplasty, especially hips. However, patients can present a lateral and posterior fat extension, not accessible to an anterior liposuction. This situation is managed by a first step with liposuction in the prone position. The aim of this study was to determine whether lipoabdominoplasty performed in two positions increases morbidity compared with lipoabdominoplasty in supine position only.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 137 patients who underwent lipoabdominoplasty between 2009 to 2013. Eighty-five patients underwent a one position lipoabdomynoplasty and 52 a two positions lipoabdomynoplasty. Medical records were reviewed to collect data regarding patient demographics, operative technique, volume of liposuction and complications.

RESULTS

The posterior liposuction has significantly increased the length of procedure (mean: 43.3 minutes). The volume of liposuction was significantly higher when the procedure was performed with prone and supine position (2789.6 mL versus 1373.8 mL, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding complications and blood loss.

CONCLUSION

Lipoabdominoplasty in two positions is an effective technique with the same morbidity as a lipoabdominoplasty in supine position only. The procedure finds its indication, between classic abdominoplasty and bodylift, for patients with lateral and posterior fat extension without posterior skin excess.

[Patient counseling in case of postoperative complication leading to emergency reintervention in plastic surgery. What is the current situation? How to improve? Retrospective study of counseling modalities and traceability in a series of 16 patients who needed emergency reintervention within a cohort of 402 patients]

AIM

Preoperative counseling is structured and well defined. Nevertheless, in the event of a complication leading to a new emergency surgical procedure, counseling is not well defined. We conducted a retrospective study of information delivered in this situation at our institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included all the patients who underwent emergency reintervention because of hematoma or operative site infection between November 2013 and October 2014. Sixteen patients were included over the 402 patients operated during this period.

RESULTS

Information before initial surgery: all patients had at least two preoperative consultations, and all preoperative informed consents were obtained. Complications leading to reintervention were mentioned in the consultation record in 31% of cases, and in a letter to another practitioner in 19% of cases. SofCPRE information card was delivered in 63% of cases. Information before reintervention: reintervention indication was mentioned in the hospitalization report in 81% of cases, and in the operative report in 88% of cases. Blood count results were mentioned in 55% of cases when it had been done. Patients were orally informed of reintervention in 100% of cases, and this new information was mentioned in 50% of cases. A new informed consent was signed in 31% of cases and postoperative letter was written in 25% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Information delivery traceability is mandatory. In case of complication leading to emergency reintervention, traceability should be done in the same way as prior to initial surgery.

[Abdominoplasty complications: particularities of the post-bariatric patients within a 238 patients series]

BACKGROUND

Obesity is one of the health issues that is recently worldwide increasing, as well as in France. Variety of procedures of bariatric surgery have been developed over the past decade and are performed for morbid obesity hence. The demand of plastic surgery increased for body contouring and reshaping after dramatic weight loss, in which the abdominoplasty is considered as one of the most common procedures. The purpose of this study is to clarify the differences between the post-bariatric patients and others, and their influence on the occurrence of complications following abdominoplasty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study involving a group of post-abdominoplasty patients collected from the same center between January 2000 and December 2010.

RESULTS

Among 238 reviewed patients' files; 114 of them are post-bariatric patients, and 124 are non-bariatric patients. Several differences were found between these two groups of patients including the maximum BMI, BMI at the time of surgery, the rates of cardiovascular risk factors, and a longer operative time in the post-bariatric group. The complication rate in these patients was significantly higher (55.3% against 26.6%) with mainly healing problems. Major maximum weight, obesity at the time of surgery, long operative time and postoperative drainage system are all considered as risk factors, which carry high rate of complications.

CONCLUSION

It appears that abdominoplasty in post-bariatric patients requires specific care because of particularities inherent in this population.