Background: Postoperative complication data are integral to assessing patient outcomes and identifying areas for improving quality in surgical care. Accurate appraisal of surgical techniques requires consistency and reliability in complication data reporting. The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality of complication reporting in plastic surgery.
Methods: The authors critically reviewed the literature from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014, to identify articles reporting surgical outcomes after three index procedures: autologous breast reconstruction, prosthetic breast reconstruction, and reduction mammaplasty. Studies were extracted from the journals Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Plastic Surgery. Two authors independently analyzed data using a modification of established criteria for complication reporting that incorporates 10 critical elements.
Results: Two hundred ninety-six articles reporting outcomes for 299,819 procedures in 249,942 patients were analyzed. Of the 10 reporting criteria, no articles met all criteria, fewer than 1 percent met nine, 16 percent met seven to eight, 43 percent met five to six, 35 percent met three to four, and 6 percent met one to two (mean, five criteria met). Commonly underreported criteria included complication definitions (37 percent of articles reported), aesthetic or patient-reported outcome (28 percent), and complication severity (16 percent). Only 46 studies (16 percent) reported complication severity, with 15 different definitions of what constituted a "major" complication. Risk factors for complications were absent in 37 percent of articles.
Conclusions: Inconsistency in reporting complications in the plastic surgery literature confounds the comparison of surgical outcomes. The use of standard guidelines to accurately, efficiently, and reproducibly report complication data is essential for quality assurance and improvement.