The perils of dental vacation: possible anaesthetic and medicolegal consequences.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this paper is to emphasize anaesthesiologists' difficulty in detecting poor dentition in cases of poorly applied prostheses and/or advanced periodontal disease, and to establish whether it is possible, and in which conditions, to calculate compensation in cases of dental damage postlaryngoscopy and/or intubation. The main complex problem here lies in trying to reconstruct exactly what the dental situation was before the teeth were damaged. For this reason the important preoperative factors (dental prostheses, crown fractures, parodontal disease, etc.) must be clearly shown before surgery on a dental chart. CLINICAL CASES: Two cases of interest, both to anaesthesiologists practising intubation and medicolegal physicians who have to deal with potential claims, are briefly reported. The first patient was a 55-year-old diabetic patient, who underwent emergency surgery for acute abdominal pathology. He had gone outside Italy for dental treatment three years previously and now presented with very poor pre-existing dentition, carefully noted on an anaesthetic chart. He now demanded compensation for dental damage due to intubation in Italy; the resulting dental treatment was very expensive because substantial remedial work was required. The second patient had received treatment outside Italy, work which involved cosmetic coating of the teeth. After surgery in Italy, she demanded compensation because one tooth, which had been coated and appeared to be healthy, was broken after emergency intubation. In both cases, the patients demanded very high compensation. COMMENT: Dental tourism alone accounts for more than 250,000 patients each year who combine a holiday with dental treatment in Eastern Europe. However, if prosthetic devices or conservative treatments are not applied correctly, it should be noted that durability may be poorer than expected, but iatrogenic damage may also be caused.

Traumatic dental injuries during anaesthesia. Part II: medico-legal evaluation and liability.

INTRODUCTION: Claims for tooth damage following intubation are increasing. An anaesthetic chart (AC) has been proposed to describe patient's pre-existent dental diseases and any possible lesions caused during intubation and extubation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 235 cases of dental lesions reported in litigation files from January 2000 to June 2009. Based on preoperative oral inspection the anaesthetist decided whether or not to use a protective aid. Two different tooth protectors were applied: (i) a standard mouthguard and (ii) silicone impression putty. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 110 female (age 6-88 years) and 125 male patients (11-90 years) patients. In 66% of cases greater risk of perianesthetic dental injury was reported in the AC due to pre-existing poor dentition. In intubation procedures without protective devices dental subluxation/luxation occurred in 55% of patients, dental avulsion in 43%, exfoliation in 2%, and soft tissue damage in five patients. One patient suffered from transient facial nerve paralysis. The costs of treatments and of impression materials, as well as the total value of compensation for injuries are reported. DISCUSSION: Definition and demonstrability of damages on the AC is important in order to separate the cases worthy of compensation from the non-compensable ones, as to evaluate the possibility of solving the litigation by extrajudicial channels. There are cases in which, based on AC reporting and device adoption the damage resulted to be compensable, but the costs were defined on different estimates of lesions. The use of a protective device makes it possible to down-modulate the damage compensation. CONCLUSION: The analysis of litigation records and 'incident reports' has suggested that the choice of accurate proceeding and the use of protection aids could reduce the number of claims, insurance premiums and the costs of litigation process, thus improving physician-patient relationship.

Traumatic dental injuries during anaesthesia: part I: clinical evaluation.

UNLABELLED: Dental injuries represent the most common claims against the anaesthesiologist. Dental lesions are frequent complications of oro-tracheal intubation and major causal factors are (i) poor dentition, (ii) aggressive laryngoscopy, (iii) insufficient anaesthesia and curarization, (iv) emergency interventions and (v) lack of experience by the anaesthesiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 83 cases of dental lesions occurring during elective, emergent and urgent surgery requiring general anaesthesia with tracheal tube placement in the years between 2000 and 2008. Preoperative evaluation of dental status was obtained from the anaesthesiology chart, filled by an experienced anaesthesiologist during the preoperative visit. Anaesthesiological records were inspected by physicians of Legal Medicine Department with the aim to attribute responsibility for the damage and manage potential reimbursements. Costs related to the required dental repair were also noted. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients of a total of 60.000 surgical procedures (no day surgery) under general anaesthesia were affected by dental lesions (0.13%). Seventy-five per cent of lesions occurred during intubation manoeuvres for elective major surgery, 15% occurred at tracheal intubation for minor surgery and 10% were related to emergency surgery. Teeth avulsions accounted for 50% of lesions, followed by damage to crowns and bridges (14%), luxations and fractures (>15%). DISCUSSION: The overall incidence of dental injury in our retrospective study was 1.38 per 1000 anaesthetics, which is slightly higher than those reported by some and lower with respect to others. Avulsion of a permanent tooth occurred in patients who were affected by severe mobility of native teeth while undergoing surgery. Even though the majority of anaesthesiologists were trained enough in the use of airway devices and aware of the potential damage while using excessive forces, some unexpected difficulties may have led to lesions. It is known that damage to teeth can occur even in the absence of negligence.

Unusual Displacement of a Mobilised Dental Bridge during Orotracheal Intubation.

Dental trauma during tracheal intubation mostly happens in case of poor dentition, restricted mouth opening, and/or difficult laryngoscopy. 57-year-old man undergoing laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma had his dental work detached at induction of anesthesia. Oropharyngeal direct view, manual inspection, fibreoptic nosendoscopy, tracheobronchoscopy, and fiberoptic inspection of the esophagus and stomach were unsuccessful in locating the dislodged bridge. While other possible exams were considered, such as lateral and AP x-ray of head and neck, further meticulous manual "sweepings" of the mouth were performed, and by moving the first and second fingers below the soft palate deep towards the posterolateral wall of the pharynx, feeling consistent with a dental prosthesis was detected in the right pharyngeal recess. Only after pulling the palatopharyngeal arch upward was it possible to grasp it and extract it out with the aid of a Magill Catheter Forceps. Even though the preexisting root and bridge deficits were well reported by the consultant dentist, the patient was fully reimbursed. The lack of appropriate documentation of the advanced periodontal disease in the anesthesia records, no mention of potential risks on anesthesia consent, and insufficient protective measures during airway instrumentation reinforced the reimbursement claim.