Search

In 2012, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Ad Hoc Panel proposed a standardised methodology on reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of this implementation on complications reporting for patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). A systematic review of all English-language original articles published on RARC until March 2020 was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The study selection process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The quality of reporting and grading complication was evaluated according to the EAU recommendations. Our analysis failed to observe a statistically significant improvement in reporting outcomes after the EAU guidelines recommendations except for three of the 14 criteria proposed (ie, follow-up duration, utilisation of a severity grade system, and risk factors included in the analyses). A lower statistically significant adherence to outcome reporting in terms of inclusion of readmissions and causes (p = 0.02), was observed. In this study, we evaluated the impact of the proposed European Association of Urology (EAU) standardised reporting tool for urological complications, in patients treated with robot-assisted radical cystectomy. A low adherence to EAU guidelines recommendations for complications reporting was observed. We failed to observe a significant improvement in reporting robot-assisted radical cystectomy outcomes after the 2012 European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommendations on reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures. There is an impending need to widely adopt the standardised predefined 14-item criteria proposed by the EAU Guidelines Panel to avoid underestimating the rate of complications and to improve patient counselling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]