Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Grading complications after transurethral resection of prostate using modified Clavien classification system and predicting complications using the Charlson comorbidity index

  • Urology-Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively report and grade the peri-operative complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) using the modified Clavien classification system (MCCS) and validate whether Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) predicts the complications after TURP.

Materials and methods

Between September 2006 and 2012, data of 722 patients who underwent TURP were analyzed after excluding patients with incomplete data (n = 40). Data recorded included the age, prostate volume, operative time, mean prostatic tissue removed and duration of hospitalization while complications were recorded using the MCCS. Preexisting comorbidities were evaluated using the CCI, and patients were classified into 3 CCI score categories (0, 1, ≥2).

Results

Two hundred and forty-four complications were seen in 145 (20 %) patients. CCI score was “0” for 480 patients (66.5 %), “1” for 184 patients (25.5 %) and “≥2” for 58 patients (8 %). Significant difference was observed between patient groups with CCI score 0, 1 and ≥2 for mean age, prostatic weight, operative time, weight of prostatic chips and duration of hospitalization. Similarly, a significant difference in occurrence of various MCCS grades of complication among patients groups with different CCI score was observed.

Conclusion

Grades I, II and III complications constituted the main bulk (90 %) while grade IV were less common (<8 %) and grade V was rare (1 %) after TURP. Men with higher CCI score had a significantly higher rate of morbidity than those with a lower score. The present study is the first to validate that CCI can predict complications of TURP recorded according to the MCCS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A et al (2008) Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lukacs B, Loeffler J, Bruyère F et al (2012) Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with Greenlight 120-W laser compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol 61(6):1165–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of a 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rabbani F, Yunis HL, Pinochet R (2010) Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 57:371–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramasamy R, Afaneh C, Katz M et al (2011) Comparison of complications of laparoscopic versus laparo-endoscopic single site donor nephrectomy using the modified Clavien grading system. J Urol 186:1386–1390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Szydełko T, Kasprzak J, Apoznan′ski W et al (2011) Clavien classification of complications after 150 laparoscopic pyeloplasties. Urology 77:1359–1364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ramasamy R, Afaneh C, Katz M et al (2011) Comparison of complications of laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy using the modified Clavien grading system. J Urol 186(4):1386–1390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mamoulakis C, Efthimiou I, Kazoulis S et al (2011) The modified Clavien classification system: a standardized platform for reporting complications in transurethral resection of the prostate. World J Urol 29:205–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mandal S, Goel A, Kathpalia R et al (2012) Prospective evaluation of complications using the modified Clavien grading system and success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using guy’s stone score: a single center experience. Indian J Urol 28(4):392–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandal S, Goel A, Singh MK et al (2012) Clavien classification of semirigid ureteroscopy complications. A prospective study. Urology 80(5):995–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Guzzo TJ, Dluzniewski P, Orosco R et al (2010) Prediction of mortality after radical prostatectomy by Charlson comorbidity index. Urology 76:553–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Connor KM, Davis N, Lennon GM et al (2009) Can we avoid surgery in elderly patients with renal masses by using the Charlson comorbidity index? BJU Int 103:1492–1495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Unsal A, Resorlu B, Atmaca AF, AkifDiri A, Goktug HNG, Can CE et al (2012) Prediction of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous nephrolithotomy by using the Charlson comorbidity index. Urology 79(1):55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Resorlu B, Diri A, Atmaca AF et al (2012) Can we avoid percutaneous nephrolithotomy in high-risk elderly patients using the Charlson comorbidity index? Urology 79(5):1042–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R et al (2006) Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 50:969–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Furuya S, Furuya R, Ogura H et al (2006) A study of 4,031 patients of transurethral resection of the prostate performed by one surgeon: learning curve, surgical results and postoperative complications. Hinyokika Kiyo 52(8):609–614

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xiong W, Sun M, Ran Q et al. (2012) Learning curve for bipolar Transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate in saline for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: experience in the first 100 consecutive patients. Urol Int. [Epub ahead of print]

  19. Fitzpatrick JM (2007) Minimally invasive and endoscopic management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Novick AC (eds) Campbell-walsh urology, 9th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 2832

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hong JY, Yang SC, Ahn S et al (2011) Preoperative comorbidities and relationship of comorbidities with postoperative complications in patients undergoing transurethral prostate resection. J Urol 185:1378–1384

    Google Scholar 

  21. Djavan B, Madersbacher S, Klingler C et al (1997) Urodynamic assessment of patients with acute urinary retention: is treatment failure after prostectomy predictable? J Urol 158:1829–1833

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuntz RM, Ahyai S, Lehrich K et al (2004) Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol 172:1012–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Colau A, Lucet JC, Rufat P et al (2001) Incidence and risk factors of bacturia after transurethral resection of the prostate. Eur Urol 39(3):272–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Holtgrewe HL, Valk WL (1962) Factors influencing the mortality and morbidity of transurethral prostatectomy: a study of 2,015 cases. J Urol 87:450–459

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Madersbacher S, Lackner J, Brössner C et al (2005) Prostate study group of the austrian society of urology. Reoperation, myocardial infarction and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy: a nation-wide, long-term analysis of 23,123 cases. Eur Urol 47:499–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Madersbacher S, Marberger M (1999) Is transurethral resection of the prostate still justified? BJU Int 83:227–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Morgan M, Smith NS, Thomas K et al (2009) Is Clavien the new standard for reporting urological complications? BJU Int 104:434–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Graefen M (2010) The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol 57:387–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Swarnendu Mandal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mandal, S., Sankhwar, S.N., Kathpalia, R. et al. Grading complications after transurethral resection of prostate using modified Clavien classification system and predicting complications using the Charlson comorbidity index. Int Urol Nephrol 45, 347–354 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0399-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0399-x

Keywords

Navigation