Wrong site surgery! How can we stop it?

INTRODUCTION: "Primum non nocere" (first do no harm): Hippocrates (c. 460 BC-377 BC). Wrong site surgery is the fourth commonest sentinel event after patient suicide, operative and post-operative complications, and medication errors. Misinterpretation of the clinic letters or radiology reports is the commonest reason for the wrong site being marked before surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 50 cases each of operations carried out on the kidney, ureter, and the testis. The side mentioned on clinic letters, the consent form, and radiology reports lists were also studied. The results were analyzed in detail to determine where the potential pitfalls were likely to arise. RESULTS: A total of 803 clinic letters from 150 cases were reviewed. The side of disease was not documented in 8.71% and five patients had the wrong side mentioned in one of their clinic letters. In the radiology reports, the side was not mentioned in three cases and it was reported wrongly in two patients. No wrong side was ever consented for and no wrong side surgery was performed. CONCLUSION: The side of surgery was not always indicated in clinic letter, theatre list, or the consent form despite the procedure being carried on a bilateral organ. As misinterpretation is a major cause of wrong side surgery, it is prudent that the side is mentioned every time in every clinic letter, consent form, and on the theatre list. The WHO surgical safety checklist has already been very effective in minimizing the wrong site surgery in the National Health Service.

Lost needle: a dilemma in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

A case is presented where a needle was lost in the assistant's port during a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. This complication generated a unique dilemma: whether or not to disengage the robot and search for the needle or to continue with the operation and look for the needle at the end of the operation.

Extra-anatomical complications of antegrade double-J insertion.

INTRODUCTION: Insertion of a double-J (JJ) stent is a common procedure often carried out in the retrograde route by the urologists and the antegrade route by the radiologists. Reported complications include stent migration, encrustation, and fracture. Extra-anatomic placement of an antegrade JJ stent is a rare but infrequently recognized complication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective audit of 165 antegrade JJ stent insertions performed over three consecutive years by a single interventional radiologist. All renal units were hydronephrotic at the time of nephrostomy. All procedures were performed under local anaesthetic with antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Antegrade stent insertion was carried out simultaneously at the time of nephrostomy in 55 of the 165 cases (33%). The remainder were inserted at a mean of 2 weeks following decompression. In five (3%) patients, who had delayed antegrade stenting following nephrostomy, the procedure was complicated by silent ureteric perforation and an extra-anatomic placement of the stent. These complications had delayed manifestations, which included two retroperitoneal abscesses, a pelvic urinoma, a case each of ureterorectal fistula, and ureterovaginal fistula. Risk factors for ureteric perforation include previous pelvic malignancy, pelvic surgery, pelvic radiation, and a history of ureteric manipulation. CONCLUSION: Antegrade ureteric JJ stenting is a procedure not without complications. Extra-anatomic placement of the antegrade stent is a hitherto the infrequently reported complication but needs a high index of suspicion to be diagnosed. Risk factors for ureteric perforation at the time of stent insertion have to be considered to prevent this potential complication.