Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

INTRODUCTION: Litigation for bile duct injury following laparoscopic cholecystectomy places financial strain on the health service, causes significant patient morbidity and adversely affects the patient and surgeon. Claimants argue that the injury itself is evidence of negligence. METHODS: A questionnaire addressing views on BDI causation was sent to members of AUGIS working in the National Health Service, UK. Response themes and responses were compared between groups of surgeons. RESULTS: Of 117 respondents, 45% experienced BDI and 22% had medicolegal experience. 47% of respondents identified factors outside the surgeons control as being relevant to BDI. Those that had experienced BDI from their own surgery were less likely to identify surgeon/systems errors as the primary cause for BDI than those that had not (34% vs 74%, p < 0.001). Medicolegal expert surgeons were more likely to report that substandard technique should be presumed (50% vs 19%, p = 0.002), however, 25% of medicolegal experts indicated that not all BDIs caused by their own surgery could have been avoided. CONCLUSION: A significant number of experienced surgeons indicated that BDI following LC should not be assumed to result from surgeon negligence or institutional failure. This suggests that negligence should not be inferred from the act of BDI alone.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.hpb.2017.04.012

Type

Journal article

Journal

HPB (Oxford)

Publication Date

08/2017

Volume

19

Pages

721 - 726