First report from the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery closed-claims registry: prevalence, causes, and lessons learned from bariatric surgery medical malpractice claims.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery has demonstrated sustained improvements in quality. Malpractice closed claims have been offered as a means of assessing quality. Few studies have investigated malpractice closed claims and opportunities for improvement in bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: To examine the prevalence and causes of malpractice claims with examination of prospects for quality improvement. SETTING: University hospital, United States; private practice. METHODS: Four national malpractice insurers participated in the closed-claims registry. Data regarding patients, staff, procedures, and hospital status were gathered from closed-claims files. Following data collection, a clinical summary of each closed claim was collected and later assessed by an expert panel on the basis of the following: contributing diagnosis and treatment events; whether complications were potentially preventable by the surgeon; the role of language, fatigue, distraction, workload, or teaching hospital/trainee supervision; communication concerns; and final care determination. RESULTS: A total of 175 closed claims were collected from index bariatric surgeries within the period from 2006-2014. Of these, 75.9% of surgeons were board certified and 43.3% of the hospitals were accredited for bariatric surgery. Most clinical complications after bariatric surgery that led to malpractice lawsuits were mortality (35.1%) and leaks (17.5%). While they were not the common cause for malpractice suits, bleeding (5.3%), retained foreign body (5.3%), and vascular injury (4.4%) occurred at higher rates than national averages. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of malpractice claims regarding bariatric surgery is low. Failure to diagnose, delay in treatment, postoperative care, and communication domain responses indicate future opportunities for improvement.

Open versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a comparative study of over 25,000 open cases and the major laparoscopic bariatric reported series.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic bariatric surgery has experienced a rapid expansion of interest over the past 5 years, with a 470% increase. This rapid expansion has markedly increased overall cost, reducing surgical access. Many surgeons believe that the traditional open approach is a cheaper, safer, equally effective alternative. METHODS: 16 highly experienced "open" bariatric surgeons with a combined total of 25,759 cases representing >200 surgeon years of experience, pooled their open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGBP) data, and compared their results to the leading laparoscopic (LRYGBP) papers in the literature. RESULTS: In the overall series, the incisional hernia rate was 6.4% using the standard midline incision. Utilizing the left subcostal incision (LSI), it was only 0.3%. Return to surgery in <30 days was 0.7%, deaths 0.25%, and leaks 0.4%. Average length of stay was 3.4 days, and return to usual activity 21 days. Small bowel obstruction was significantly higher with the LRYGBP. Surgical equipment costs averaged approximately $3,000 less for "open" cases. LRYGBP had an added expense for longer operative time. This more than made up for the shorter length of stay with the laparoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: The higher cost, higher leak rate, higher rate of small bowel obstruction, and similar long-term weight loss results make the "open" RYGBP our preferred operation. If the incision is taken out of the equation (i.e. use of the LSI), the significant advantages of the open technique become even more obvious.