LAUSR

STUDY OBJECTIVE To report circumstances and clinical and medicolegal outcomes of 9 litigated cases associated with direct trocar insertion (DTI) injuries to the bowel (7 cases) and major vessel (2 cases) during primary laparoscopic access. DESIGN A case series from 1990 through 2015 (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2). PATIENTS Nine litigated cases. INTERVENTIONS A retrospective review of medical and legal records of litigated cases in Canada reviewed by the primary author (G.A.V.). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The average and range of age and body mass index of the women were 31 years (range, 14-65 years) and 25 kg/m2 (range, 20-35 kg/m2), respectively. Indications for laparoscopy included diagnostic (4), laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (3), pelvic mass (1), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1). DTI was performed with 10-mm trocars (5 shielded, 1 reusable, and 3 unknown). Two complications were experienced by patients of the same male surgeon (cases 2 and 9). Injuries included the small bowel (4 cases), colon (3 cases), and major vessel (2 cases). Vascular injuries resulted in permanent brain damage in 1 and near loss of limb in the other; litigation was favorable to the plaintiff in both cases. All bowel injuries presented with signs and symptoms of peritonitis within 3 postoperative days (PODs) (5 patients on POD 1, 1 patient on POD 2, and 1 patient on POD 3); however, only 2 cases were acted upon and remedied with favorable clinical and medicolegal outcomes. A delayed exploratory laparotomy resulted in significant adverse clinical outcomes (ileostomy/colostomy in 4 patients, multiple surgeries in 7 patients, and 1 death), and in all delayed actions, the medicolegal outcomes were favorable to the plaintiff. CONCLUSION During laparoscopic primary peritoneal access using the DTI technique, inadvertent intra-abdominal injury may be significant when major vessels are involved and when intervention is delayed in bowel injuries. These result in significant adverse clinical complications and may provoke higher litigation with more favorable outcomes for the plaintiff.