Analysis of 136 ureteral injuries in gynecological and obstetrical surgery from completed insurance claims

41Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective. Iatrogenic ureteral injury during pelvic surgical procedures is a well-known complication and important cause of morbidity. The authors investigated the circumstances surrounding registered ureteral injuries in order to identify potential opportunities to prevent such injuries. Design. Evaluation of claims concerning ureteral injuries reported to the Danish Patient Insurance Association. Setting. Danish Patient Insurance Association. Sample. All registered claims for ureteral injuries from 1996 to 2006. Methods. Retrospective study of medical records and data from Danish Patient Insurance Association. Main outcome measures. Preventable ureteral injuries. Results. From 1996 to 2006, 136 submitted claims concerning ureteral injuries were registered. Among these, 73 claims were approved (54%), and compensation paid. In 44 of these, the injury was caused by negligence. Failure to dissect the ureter despite indications for this procedure was the most common type of negligence. Laparotomy procedures were associated with 107 injuries (79%) and 29 injuries (21%) were caused during laparoscopic procedures. Thirty-four patients suffered from chronic renal dysfunction on the affected side. Only 17 of the ureteral injuries were discovered during the procedure. Conclusions. Forty-four ureteral injuries could potentially have been avoided using established surgical practices, most importantly by exposing the ureter via dissection when indicated. Most of the ureteral injuries were discovered postoperatively. © 2010 Informa UK Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hove, L. D., Bock, J., Christoffersen, J. K., & Andreasson, B. (2010). Analysis of 136 ureteral injuries in gynecological and obstetrical surgery from completed insurance claims. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 89(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016340903433974

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free