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.

Introduction: The implementation of advanced minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques has broadened. An extensive body of literature shows that high hospital and surgeon volumes lead to better patient outcomes. However, no information is available regarding volume trends in the post-implementation phase of MIS. This study investigated these trends and poses suggestions to adjust these developments. This knowledge can provide guidance to optimize patient safe performance of new surgical techniques. Material and methods: A national retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands. The number of advanced laparoscopic (level 3 and 4) and robotic procedures and the number of gynecologists performing them were collected through a web-based questionnaire to determine hospital and gynecological surgeon volume. These volumes were compared with our previously collected data from 2012. Results: The response rate was 85%. Hospitals produced larger volumes for advanced laparoscopic and robotic procedures. However, still 63% of the hospitals perform low-volume level 4 laparoscopic procedures. Additionally, gynecological surgeon volumes appeared to decrease for level 3 procedures, as the group of gynecologists performing fewer than 20 procedures expanded (64% vs. 44% in 2012), with 15% of the gynecologists performing fewer than ten procedures. Despite an increase in surgeon volumes for level 4 laparoscopy and robotic surgery, volumes continued to be low, as still 49% of gynecologists performed fewer than 10 level 4 procedures per year and 41% performed fewer than 20 robotic procedures per year. Conclusions: The broad implementation of advanced MIS procedures resulted in an increasing number of these procedures with increasing hospital volumes. However, as a side-effect, a disproportionate rise in number of gynecologists performing these procedures was observed. Therefore, surgeon volumes remain low and even decreased for some procedures. Centralization of complex procedures and training of specialized MIS gynecologists could improve surgeon volumes and therefore consequently enhance patient safety.

Objective: To evaluate if immediate catheter removal (ICR) after laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with similar retention outcomes compared with delayed removal (DCR). Study design: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Population: Women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Methods: Women were randomised to ICR or DCR (between 18 and 24 hours after surgery). Primary outcome: The inability to void within 6 hours after catheter removal. Results: One hundred and fifty-five women were randomised to ICR (n = 74) and DCR (n = 81). The intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis could not demonstrate the non-inferiority of ICR: ten women with ICR could not urinate spontaneously within 6 hours compared with none in the delayed group (risk difference 13.5%, 5.6–24.8, P = 0.88). However, seven of these women could void spontaneously within 9 hours without additional intervention. Regarding the secondary outcomes, eight women from the delayed group requested earlier catheter removal because of complaints (9.9%). Three women with ICR (4.1%) had a urinary tract infection postoperatively versus eight with DCR (9.9%, risk difference −5.8%, −15.1 to 3.5, P = 0.215). Women with ICR mobilised significantly earlier (5.7 hours, 0.8–23.3 versus 21.0 hours, 1.4–29.9; P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: The non-inferiority of ICR could not be demonstrated in terms of urinary retention 6 hours after procedure. However, 70% of the women with voiding difficulties could void spontaneously within 9 hours after laparoscopic hysterectomy. It is therefore questionable if all observed urinary retention cases were clinically relevant. As a result, the clinical advantages of ICR may still outweigh the risk of bladder retention and it should therefore be considered after uncomplicated laparoscopic hysterectomy. Tweetable abstract: The advantages of immediate catheter removal after laparoscopic hysterectomy seem to outweigh the risk of bladder retention.