Adverse events in carotid endarterectomy from a medicolegal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Characterize factors raised in carotid endarterectomy litigation. METHODS: Outcomes, alleged causes of malpractice, and other factors were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 37 verdicts and settlements, defendants were not liable in 25 (67.5%) cases. Frequently reported complications included stroke (51.3%) and hypoglossal nerve injury (27.0%), with other complications including airway compromise, vocal cord injury, and death. No cases reported myocardial infarction. Cerebral monitoring was mentioned in 2 cases, while inadequate informed consent, delayed diagnosis, and requirement of additional surgery were alleged in numerous instances. Settlements and jury awards averaged US$895 833 and US$1.53 million, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke and hypoglossal nerve injury are the most frequently litigated complications, and mean damages awarded were considerable. Knowledge of issues raised in our analysis may be included in a comprehensive consent process, potentially minimizing liability and improving patient safety.

Esophageal perforation and rupture: a comprehensive medicolegal examination of 59 jury verdicts and settlements.

BACKGROUND: Consequences accompanying esophageal perforation make this complication a prime litigation target. We characterize factors in jury verdicts and settlements regarding esophageal perforation, including operative procedure, patient demographics, alleged cause(s) of malpractice, outcome, and other factors. METHODS: Pertinent court records were examined for the aforementioned factors. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and anesthesiologists were the most commonly named defendants. Two thirds of outcomes were for the defendant, and 11.9 % were settled (median--$650,000); 20.3% resulted in awarded damages (median--$1.2 M). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was the most commonly litigated procedure, followed by intubation and Nissen fundoplication. Necessity of repair, delayed diagnosis, death, and inadequate consent were the most frequently cited factors in litigation. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the factors important in determining legal responsibility is of great interest for practitioners in multiple specialties. The requirement of surgical repair and a delay in diagnosis are two of the most common factors present in litigated cases resulting in a payment. The importance of explicitly listing esophageal perforation in the informed consent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, abdominal surgery, and any patients at risk of intubation injury needs to be emphasized.