Cited by 11,482Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsDelphi Technique in Research

The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications: Five-Year Experience

Clavien, Pierre A., Barkun, Jeffrey, de Oliveira, Michelle L., Vauthey, Jean Nicolas, Dindo, Daniel, Schulick, Richard D., de Santibañes, Eduardo, Pekolj, Juan +7 more·2009·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Background and Aims: The lack of consensus on how to define and grade adverse postoperative events has greatly hampered the evaluation of surgical procedures. A new classification of complications, initiated in 1992, was updated 5 years ago. It is based on the type of therapy needed to correct the complication. The principle of the classification was to be simple, reproducible, flexible, and applicable irrespective of the cultural background. The aim of the current study was to critically evaluate this classification from the perspective of its use in the literature, by assessing interobserver variability in grading complex complication scenarios and to correlate the classification grades with patients', nurses', and doctors’ perception. Material and Methods: Reports from the literature using the classification system were systematically analyzed. Next, 11 scenarios illustrating difficult cases were prepared to develop a consensus on how to rank the various complications. Third, 7 centers from different continents, having routinely used the classification, independently assessed the 11 scenarios. An agreement analysis was performed to test the accuracy and reliability of the classification. Finally, the perception of the severity was tested in patients, nurses, and physicians by presenting 30 scenarios, each illustrating a specific grade of complication. Results: We noted a dramatic increase in the use of the classification in many fields of surgery. About half of the studies used the contracted form, whereas the rest used the full range of grading. Two-thirds of the publications avoided subjective terms such as minor or major complications. The study of 11 difficult cases among various centers revealed a high degree of agreement in identifying and ranking complications (89% agreement), and enabled a better definition of unclear situations. Each grade of complications significantly correlated with the perception by patients, nurses, and physicians (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test). Conclusions: This 5-year evaluation provides strong evidence that the classification is valid and applicable worldwide in many fields of surgery. No modification in the general principle of classification is warranted in view of the use in ongoing publications and trials. Subjective, inaccurate, or confusing terms such as “minor or major” should be removed from the surgical literature. A critical appraisal 5 years after introducing a new system to rank postoperative complications has shown a rapid and wide acceptance in the literature. To further support the use of this system, we documented an excellent correlation between the various grades of severity and perception by patients and health care providers, and obtained consensus among experts to rank difficult cases. The grades are sufficiently self explanatory that subjective terms such as minor and major complications should be avoided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b13ca2

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clavien, P. A., Barkun, J., de Oliveira, M. L., Vauthey, J. N., Dindo, D., Schulick, R. D., de Santibañes, E., Pekolj, J., Slankamenac, K., Bassi, C., Graf, R., Vonlanthen, R., Padbury, R., Cameron, J. L., & Makuuchi, M.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires (AR)
  • Flinders Medical Centre (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Clavien, Pierre A.
  • Dindo, Daniel
  • Slankamenac, Ksenija
  • Graf, Rolf
  • Vonlanthen, René
  • Padbury, Robert
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2009-08
Volume
250
Issue
2
Pages
187-196
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144173184
Cited by
11,482
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 939 · 2025: 1187 · 2024: 1237 · 2023: 1210 · 2022: 1208 · 2021: 1086 · 2020: 934 · 2019: 701 · 2018: 600 · 2017: 502 · 2016: 514 · 2015: 445 · 2014: 318 · 2013: 242 · 2012: 169
FWCI
74.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
Clavien-Dindo classification, postoperative complications, complication grading, interobserver agreement, complication severity, patient perspectives, nurses' perceptions, physician perceptions, classification validity
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review