Medicolegal Issues in Power Morcellation: Cautionary Rules for Gynecologists to Avoid Unfavorable Outcomes.

Power morcellation in laparoscopic surgery enables specialists to carry out minimally invasive procedures such as hysterectomies and myomectomies by cutting specimens into smaller pieces using a rotating blade and removing pieces through a laparoscope. Unexpected uterine sarcoma treated by surgery involving tumor disruption could be associated with poor prognosis. The current study aims to shed light on power morcellation from a medicolegal perspective: the procedure has resulted in adverse outcomes and litigation, and compensation for plaintiffs, as published in various journals cited in PubMed and MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and GyneWeb. Considering the claims after the US Food and Drug Administration warnings on morcellation, the current study broadens the scope of research by including search engines, legal databases, and court filings (DeJure, Lexis Nexis, Justia, superior court of New Jersey, and US district court of Minnesota) between 1995 and 2019. Legal records show that courts determine professional responsibility regarding complications, making it essential to document adherence to safety protocols and specific guidelines, when available. Sound medical practices and clearly stated institute best practices result in better patient outcomes and are important when unfavorable clinical outcomes occur; adverse legal decisions can be avoided if there are grounds to prove professional conformity with specific guidelines and the unpredictability of an event.

Impact of the Food and Drug Administration Safety Communication on the Use of Power Morcellator in Daily Clinical Practice: An Italian Survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning about power morcellation use on the daily clinical practice of Italian gynecologists. DESIGN: Electronic survey mailed to the main gynecologic centers (Canadian Task Force Classification type III). SETTING: Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IRCCS - Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova di Reggio Emilia (Italy). PATIENTS: The study did not include patient data. INTERVENTION: There was no intervention. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From 490 surveys sent out, 426 replies were included in the final analysis (return rate = 86.9%). Four hundred of the 426 (93.9%) gynecologists were aware of the FDA warning. One hundred fifty of 302 (49.7%) of experienced gynecologists and 176 of 349 (50.4%) of oncology gynecologists considered laparoscopy the best approach for myomectomy. The FDA communication was considered overly restrictive by experienced and oncology gynecologists who declared that they had no intention of changing their surgical approach. Two hundred fifty of the 426 (58.7%) gynecologists declared that they would change their surgical approach only to prevent legal litigation. CONCLUSION: The FDA warning also affected Italian gynecologists. Particularly, less experienced gynecologists and those without oncologic practice seem to be more interested in avoiding legal litigation rather than a real clinical risk of upstaging an unexpected leiomyosarcoma. Fear of undiagnosed sarcoma could increase the number of laparotomies.

A medical-legal review of power morcellation in the face of the recent FDA warning and litigation.

Minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons who perform laparoscopic intraperitoneal morcellation should be aware of the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning and litigation arising from use of morcellation devices with claims of intraperitoneal dissemination of cancerous cells. On November 24, 2014, the FDA issued a statement warning against using laparoscopic power morcellators in the majority of women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Despite the best intentions in regards to their patients, gynecologists who continue to use power morcellation devices expose themselves to liability. This article is not meant to further deter gynecologists from using laparoscopic power morcellators, but rather to provide an interpretation of the FDA statement as to the patients for whom the use of power morcellation may still be permitted under the FDA guidelines. This article also offers protective measures from a legal perspective for those who choose to continue to use power morcellation in the face of the recent FDA warning and litigation.