Mary Kay Plyter-Eigner and Emily A. Giradi obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a urology group in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The matter involved a patient who was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate following a biopsy. The urologist recommended active surveillance but additionally counseled the patient that a radical prostatectomy would be a reasonable treatment option given the patient’s young age. After monitoring the patient’s prostate cancer for approximately six months, an MRI and repeat biopsy revealed that the cancer had progressed to an intermediate grade for which active surveillance was no longer a good option. The urologist recommended surgical treatment to which the patient agreed.
The patient underwent a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, bilateral lymph node dissection, lysis of adhesions, and cystoscopy with no noted complications. At the conclusion of the procedure, the urologist inspected the entirety of the bowel and found no perforations. There were several locations with serosal tears which were reapproximated using interrupted 3-0 Vicryl.
Following the surgery, the patient experienced persistent abdominal pain. The Plaintiff alleged that the robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was improperly performed resulting in a bowel perforation. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants failed to promptly diagnose and treat the bowel perforation, resulting in the need for multiple corrective surgeries. The defense argued that the urologist properly and carefully performed the surgery. Prior to placement of the necessary trocars, Plaintiff had numerous adhesions that required removal and lysis through a tedious process. Several serosal tears were noted and repaired. The bowel was inspected at the beginning, middle, and end of the case with no perforation noted.
After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the urologist and urology group, finding that their care and treatment of the patient was not negligent.