Accordion: A Useful and Workable Classification of Complications After Breast Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether Accordion Severity Grading System can serve as a tool for classification, and severity assessment in reporting postoperative complications after breast reconstructive surgery. Methods: A retrospective analysis covered 88 breast reconstruction surgeries following mastectomy and prophylactic breast amputation with simultaneous reconstruction conducted from January 2015 to December 2017. All registered postoperative complications were evaluated using the Accordion Severity Grading System. The time horizon selected was 6 weeks after surgery. Results: Eighty-two adverse events which met the criteria for complications according to the Accordion classification were observed in 53.4% (n = 47) of the patients. The highest percentage of complications was observed in the group where reconstruction involved using autologous tissues (pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous), which were associated with 77.4% risk of complications. In patients with combined methods (latissimus dorsi + prosthesis), complications occurred in half of the cases (51.4%). In patients who underwent reconstructive procedures with artificial materials (expander/prosthesis), complications occurred in 20% of cases. A high γ correlation coefficient of 0.7 ( P < .001) was observed between the Accordion degree assigned to the patient and the length of hospital stay. A moderately strong correlation was found between the degree of Accordion system and rehospitalization rate (r = 0.54; P < .0001) and cost of hospital care (r = 0.65; P < .001). Discussion: Based upon the presented study, Accordion Severity Grading System is a workable, intuitive and universal scale for classifying and assessing the severity of postoperative complications and may be recommended for documenting complications in breast reconstructive procedures.

Classification of postoperative complications in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review

“…The ASGS was used in four papers and had a much larger scope of patients from breast, aesthetic and carpal tunnel procedures. [17][18][19][20] In the broader surgical literature, CDC was used in 88 papers, and ASGS in 19 papers. Hence, evaluating current systems in PRS forms a minority (16/107, 15.0 %).…”