Litigations Involving Ureteral Injury Related to Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: Lessons Learned from a Legal Literature Review

Abstract

Ureteral injury is a known complication of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Despite being discussed preoperatively and included in consent forms, litigations that involve such injury continue to be prevalent. Our aim was to review all major litigations involving ureteral injuries related to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery to determine the most common allegations from plaintiffs and highlight factors that aided defendants. We used Lexis Nexis, a comprehensive legal database, to search all publicly available federal- and state-level cases on ureteral injury related to gynecologic surgeries. Fifty-nine cases resulted from our search. Of these cases, 19 were deemed pertinent to our question. These 19 cases occurred between 1993 and 2018. The most common allegations included medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and medical battery. Eight of 19 cases (42%) were decided in favor of the defendants, 3 of 19 cases (16%) in favor of the plaintiffs, and the remaining cases proceeded to further trial or are ongoing. The monetary compensation to a plaintiff was as high as $426,079.50. Meticulous documentation, comprehensive consent procedure, timely postoperative evaluation, and the use of immediate postoperative cystoscopy were the critical factors that aided the defendants. Meticulous documentation, a comprehensive consent procedure, timely postoperative evaluation, and the use of immediate postoperative cystoscopy can aid minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons involved in litigations involving ureteral injury.

Keywords: Hysterectomy; Injury; Laparoscopy; Litigation; Malpractice; Ureter.