↓ Skip to main content

EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6108-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. K. Francis, N. J. Curtis, J. A. Conti, J. D. Foster, H. J. Bonjer, G. B. Hanna, on behalf of the EAES committees

Abstract

Surgical 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. A 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. 217 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. A clinically applicable intraoperative adverse event classification, which is acceptable to expert surgeons, is reported and complements the objective assessment of minimal access surgical performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Engineering 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,357,029
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,250
of 6,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,686
of 445,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#37
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.