PD42-11 MALPRACTICE LITIGATION IN PENILE AUGMENTATION SURGERY: A LEGAL DATABASE REVIEW

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD42-11 MALPRACTICE LITIGATION IN PENILE AUGMENTATION SURGERY: A LEGAL DATABASE REVIEW Shanice Cox, Nicolas Seranio, Wade Muncey, and Michael Eisenberg Shanice CoxShanice Cox More articles by this author , Nicolas SeranioNicolas Seranio More articles by this author , Wade MunceyWade Muncey More articles by this author , and Michael EisenbergMichael Eisenberg More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003352.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Surgical penile augmentation for aesthetic purposes is an invasive procedure that carries with it an increased risk of medicolegal liability. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors associated with malpractice litigation surrounding penile augmentation surgery. METHODS: We reviewed the Nexis Uni legal database for state and federal cases using the terms "penile” or “penis” and “enlargement" or "augmentation" or "enhancement”. Variables extracted included trial date, demographic information, procedure performed, alleged breach of duty, alleged damages, and legal outcome. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded 48 cases that were narrowed to six after exclusions. The original surgeries took place between 1993 and 2004 while the cases were between the years of 2001 to 2008. Most cases were processed in state court systems (83%) with the majority taking place in New York (66.67%). Half of the physician defendants were urologists and half were plastic surgeons. The alleged breaches of duty included lack of informed consent (44.44%), negligence (33.33%), and deceptive business practices (22.22%). The verdict in 60% of the cases favored the defendant. Suspensory ligament release accounted for the most common (44.4%) type of augmentation surgery performed with the remaining being unspecified (33.3%), autologous fat injection (11.10%), and autologous fat grafting (11.10%). The most commonly alleged damages were equal amongst erectile dysfunction, decreased sensation, and need for additional corrective surgeries at 23.1% each. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively few cases since the 2000’s likely reflects a trend towards nonsurgical methods of penile augmentation. The main issues involved in malpractice litigation in penile augmentation surgery included lack of informed consent, negligence, and deceptive business practices. Additionally patients complained of a number of damages including sexual dysfunction and the need for corrective surgeries. Given that that total number of penile augmentation is not known, the prevalence of postoperative litigation cannot be estimated. Nevertheless, penile augmentation surgery remains investigational and providers should be aware of its medicolegal implications. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e1115 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Shanice Cox More articles by this author Nicolas Seranio More articles by this author Wade Muncey More articles by this author Michael Eisenberg More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...