Use of morcellation in laparoscopic myomectomy. Medical malpractice and medicolegal considerations.

Background: In recent years, due to the increase in medical mal-practice complaints, the Sicilian Regional Health System has adopted procedures for the direct management of claims by each health facility with the aim of reducing the costs of insurance premiums and related taxes. Mandatory sentinel event monitoring is a crucial part of this strategy to improve patient safety and quality of care. The reported case relates to a laparoscopic myomectomy surgery performed by means of morcellation, a controversial technique. After the FDA's intervention in 2014, it is believed that morcellation may worsen the staging of the disease by spreading malignancies such as leiomyosarcoma into the abdomen. Case report: A 28-year-old woman, underwent laparoscopic surgery for uterine fibroids and an ovarian cyst removal in August 2018. Post-surgery, she was diagnosed with Leiomyoma. She returned to the hospital due to metrorrhagia and was discharged after a week. Persistent symptoms led to her readmission and subsequent exploratory laparoscopic surgery at another hospital. This resulted in a total hysterectomy and the discovery of uterine leiomyosarcoma, with FIGO STAGE IIIB staging. Despite chemotherapy, she passed away six months later. Discussion and Conclusions: This case highlights medical-legal issues. Informed consent for morcellation and its risks was not obtained. The morcellation technique was used, increasing cancer spread risk. The histopathological process was inadequate, with three biopsies leading to misdiagnosis. This could be medical malpractice, making providers legally responsible for the patient's deteriorating condition and the anticipation of possible death.

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.

The Role of Social Networks, Medical-Legal Climate, and Patient Advocacy on Surgical Options: A New Era.

The dissemination of information online and resultant public discourse through social media and other online channels has influenced the practice of medicine in dramatic ways. Physicians have historically worked to develop new techniques and devices for the benefit of their patients. It is only a more recent phenomenon, however, that these tools are either removed or their use is curtailed largely driven by anecdotal reports; passionate, vocal, often media-savvy advocates; and plaintiff attorneys. The use of power morcellation, hysteroscopic tubal sterilization, and mesh in urogynecologic procedures all have been victims of these societal pressures. It is important for health care professionals to be involved in the debate to ensure that public outcry does not unduly influence what we, as clinicians, are able to safely offer our patients. By being better advocates for our field, our instruments, and our patients, we can ensure medical decision-making is driven by good science and not public fervor.