= Clavien-Dindo classification
{c}
The <Clavien-Dindo classification> is an ordered severity classification for <postoperative complications>, based principally on the treatment needed to manage a deviation from the normal postoperative course. The 2004 proposal by <Daniel Dindo>, <Nicolas Demartines> and <Pierre-Alain Clavien> revised an earlier system and tested the revision using a 6,336-patient cohort and an international surgeon survey.<Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey by Daniel Dindo and others>[Abstract, Methods and Definitions, and validation sections]{ref}
The main grades summarize different management consequences. Grade I permits only the limited measures specified in the original definition. Grade II includes additional pharmacological treatment and the specified categories of transfusion or nutritional support. Grade III requires surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention; IIIa and IIIb distinguish whether general <anaesthesia> is used. Grade IV concerns a life-threatening complication requiring intermediate or intensive care, with subdivisions for single- and multiple-organ dysfunction. Grade V denotes death. The original table supplies the precise exceptions and qualifications.<Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey by Daniel Dindo and others>[Table 1]{ref}
The scale is ordered, not a ruler with equal intervals. Grade IV does not mean “twice as severe” as grade II. A numerical mean of grade labels consequently requires a justification beyond their ordering. Reporting the proportions in each category preserves information that a single average can hide.
Consider two illustrative groups of ten people. In each group, one person’s highest complication grade is III and the other nine have none. A highest-grade summary is identical. If the first affected person has one event and the second has three separate events, the summary still does not distinguish their total complication burden. Thus the unit of analysis, repeated-event rule and follow-up interval belong in the report. The original cohort analysis explicitly recorded the most severe complication when a patient had several.<Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey by Daniel Dindo and others>[Validation section, rule for multiple complications]{ref}
The classification makes outcome descriptions more reproducible, but assigning a grade is distinct from establishing why an event occurred or which care strategy would have prevented it. It is most informative alongside clear case definitions and the wider evaluation of <perioperative care>.
Back to article page
