Intra-Operative Complication Assessment and Reporting With Universal Standards: Survey

NCT ID: NCT04994392

Last Updated: 2022-05-19

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

4821 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-07-10

Study Completion Date

2022-04-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Perioperative complications, especially intraoperative adverse events (iAEs), carry significant potential for long-term sequelae in a patient's postoperative course. Without consistent and homogenous reporting, these events represent a substantial gap in contemporary surgical literature and clinical practice. By definition, an iAE is any unplanned incident related to a surgical intervention occurring between skin incision and skin closure.

Despite the availability of multiple intraoperative classification systems, the reporting of intraoperative adverse events remains exceedingly rare. Further, while most studies report postoperative adverse events, only a fraction of surgical publications report intraoperative complications as outcomes of interest. Many reasons could be related to this dearth in iAE reporting, ranging from a lack of clear iAE definitions to a fear of litigation. Broadly speaking, iAEs are negative outcomes, which, on the whole, epitomize a paradoxically well-documented bias in the literature.

The investigators performed an umbrella review and meta-analysis of prior systematic reviews of complication reporting in a number of key urologic surgical domains. The investigators have since worked with academic surgeons to produce a set of iAE reporting guidelines known as the Intraoperative Complication Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) Guidelines. These reporting criteria were developed using the reporting guidelines using the framework outlined by the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research; www.equator-network.org/).

As part of a prospective effort to evaluate the utility of these new guidelines, the investigators are performing a study of surgeons, anesthesiologists,s and nurses perceptions regarding iAE reporting and the global applicability of the new iAE reporting guidelines.

In part one of this study, a series of survey questions will be used to better elucidate surgeon perceptions underlying the contemporary deficit in iAE reporting. In part two of this study, a set of assessments to representatives within various surgical specialties to assess the global applicability of the newly developed iAE reporting guidelines.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Intraoperative Complications Surgery--Complications Surgery Surgical Procedure, Unspecified

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Documented understanding, willingness, and agreement to participate in this study
2. Males and females; age 18 or older
3. Must be either English speaking or fluent with English medical terminology
4. Currently or formerly practicing surgeon or proceduralist, regardless of the domain

Exclusion Criteria

1\. Activity restrictions that limit one's ability to engage in online survey

1. Adults not competent to consent
2. Minors, human fetuses, neonates
3. Prisoners/Detainees

The sample size of the survey is calculated as reported by Taherdoost, Hamed et al. Determining Sample Size; How to Calculate Survey Sample Size (2017). International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, Vol. 2, 2017, considering the worldwide surgeons and anesthesiologists population (n. 1,853,842) accordingly to the most recent WHO Surgical workforce Census (https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.HRSWF),with a 95% Level and 2% marginal error.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Southern California

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Giovanni Cacciamani

Assistant Professor of Urology (research)

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Giovanni E Cacciamani, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Southern California

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Taherdoost, Hamed, Determining Sample Size; How to Calculate Survey Sample Size (2017). International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, Vol. 2, 2017, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3224205

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Biyani CS, Pecanka J, Roupret M, Jensen JB, Mitropoulos D. Intraoperative Adverse Incident Classification (EAUiaiC) by the European Association of Urology ad hoc Complications Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2020 May;77(5):601-610. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.015. Epub 2019 Nov 29.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 31787430 (View on PubMed)

Rosenthal R, Hoffmann H, Clavien PA, Bucher HC, Dell-Kuster S. Definition and Classification of Intraoperative Complications (CLASSIC): Delphi Study and Pilot Evaluation. World J Surg. 2015 Jul;39(7):1663-71. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3003-y.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 25665678 (View on PubMed)

Kaafarani HM, Mavros MN, Hwabejire J, Fagenholz P, Yeh DD, Demoya M, King DR, Alam HB, Chang Y, Hutter M, Antonelli D, Gervasini A, Velmahos GC. Derivation and validation of a novel severity classification for intraoperative adverse events. J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Jun;218(6):1120-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.12.060. Epub 2014 Feb 28.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 24702887 (View on PubMed)

Kazaryan AM, Rosok BI, Edwin B. Morbidity assessment in surgery: refinement proposal based on a concept of perioperative adverse events. ISRN Surg. 2013 May 16;2013:625093. doi: 10.1155/2013/625093. Print 2013.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 23762627 (View on PubMed)

Han K, Bohnen JD, Peponis T, Martinez M, Nandan A, Yeh DD, Lee J, Demoya M, Velmahos G, Kaafarani HMA. The Surgeon as the Second Victim? Results of the Boston Intraoperative Adverse Events Surgeons' Attitude (BISA) Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Jun;224(6):1048-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.039. Epub 2017 Jan 16.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 28093300 (View on PubMed)

Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N, Ortega D, Gill K, Dell'Oglio P, Thalmann GN, Heidenreich A, Eastham JA, Evans CP, Karnes RJ, De Castro Abreu AL, Briganti A, Artibani W, Gill I, Montorsi F. Impact of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection and Its Extent on Perioperative Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Apr;4(2):134-149. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001. Epub 2021 Mar 6.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 33745687 (View on PubMed)

Cacciamani GE, Medina LG, Tafuri A, Gill T, Baccaglini W, Blasic V, Glina FPA, De Castro Abreu AL, Sotelo R, Gill IS, Artibani W. Impact of Implementation of Standardized Criteria in the Assessment of Complication Reporting After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus. 2020 May 15;6(3):513-517. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.12.004. Epub 2018 Dec 23.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30587445 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

UP-21-00473

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.