Medical malpractice in stress urinary incontinence management: A 30-year legal database review

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to investigate the most common reasons for and judicial outcomes of malpractice claims related to stress urinary incontinence (SUI) management. Materials and methods: Using the Westlaw database, a search was performed using the terms “medical malpractice” or “negligence” in combination with “stress incontinence” or “stress urinary incontinence” between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 2020. Extracted information included trial date, demographic information, defendant profession, procedure performed, procedure complications, alleged malpractice, trial outcome, and monetary award. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The Westlaw search yielded 79 case results. Of the cases, 70.4% (n = 38/54) had a defense verdict, 22.2% (n = 12/54) had a plaintiff verdict, and 7.4% (n = 4/54) were settled. The most commonly implicated procedure was mid-urethral sling (63.2%, n = 36/57). Among the plaintiffs, 48.4% (n = 61/126) claimed negligence in preoperative care, 33.3% (n = 42/126) claimed negligence in surgical performance, and 18.3% (n = 23/126) claimed negligence in postoperative care. Lack of informed consent was the most common complaint related to negligence in preoperative care (42.6%, n = 26/61). The average indemnity payment was $1,253,644 for preoperative care negligence, $1,254,491 for surgical performance negligence, and $2,239,198 for postoperative care negligence. Of the defendants, 63.4% (n = 52) were gynecologists and 36.6% (n = 30) were urologists. Conclusions: Negligent preoperative care, with a particular emphasis on failure to obtain informed consent, and negligent surgical performance are the leading causes of malpractice claims during SUI management. Mid-urethral sling was the most commonly litigated procedure. This study highlights key factors to consider in minimizing malpractice risk during SUI management.