[What went wrong? Analysis of Medical Malpractice Arbitration Proceedings Conducted by a German Arbitration Board after Breast Reductions]. / Was geht schief? Schlichtungsverfahren nach Mammareduktionen - eine Analyse der Eingriffe mit Behandlungsfehler und Haftungsanspruch der Norddeutschen Schlichtungsstelle.

INTRODUCTION: The Arbitration Board for Medical Liability Issues of the Medical Association of North Germany ("Norddeutsche Schlichtungsstelle") is responsible for 10 federal states in Germany (Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saarland, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia) and is the largest arbitration board in Germany. The data available from the Norddeutsche Schlichtungsstelle provides an insight into sources of malpractice during the treatment of reduction mammoplasty. MATERIAL UND METHODS: We analysed patient request, expert opinions prepared by independent physicians on behalf of the Norddeutsche Schlichtungsstelle and the final verdicts of 88 arbitration proceedings after breast reduction mammoplasties performed between 2000 and 2007. This data allows for each case to be addressed from different viewpoints. Furthermore we analysed the statistical data entered into the Medical Error Reporting System by the arbitration board. RESULTS: Among the 88 patient requests after reduction mammoplasty, the arbitration board found a causal relationship between damage caused to a patient's health and medical malpractice in 37 cases. Therefore, 42% of requests resulted in a liability case. This is a higher rate than that of general arbitration proceedings, where only in 24% of all cases a causal relationship is confirmed by the Norddeutsche Schlichtungsstelle. Most patients were operated on by gynaecologists. In 92% of liability cases, mistakes happened during the planning and the performance of the surgical procedure, mainly during planning (65%) and surgical incisions (41%). The patients mainly complained about scars (78%), asymmetry (68%) and skin necrosis of the areola (24%). Financial disadvantage was mentioned less often (46%) than psychological stress (70%). DISCUSSION: The higher rate of liability claims may be due to the fact the surgical procedures changing the shape of breasts are more complex than generally expected. Not only the surgery itself, but also the adequate planning and aftercare are of predominant importance for patient satisfaction. All these factors lead to the relatively high rate of medical malpractice in plastic aesthetic breast surgery. Also the communication factor should not be underestimated.