Litigation Patterns in Oncologic Nephrectomies: A 30-Year Review

Introduction: The litigious environment encompassing the medical-legal domain is an increasing concern for surgical fields, with urology being no exception. The objective of our study was to systematically review, evaluate, and summarize the factors associated with oncologic nephrectomy litigation to determine possible factors contributing to verdicts or settlements. Materials and Methods: Publicly available verdict reports were retrieved using the Westlaw(R) legal database (Reuters). Cases were identified using the search term "nephrectomy" with dates ranging from January 1, 1990 to July 1, 2019. Each case was evaluated by two independent reviewers for defendant specialty, alleged breach in treatment, resulting complications, verdict outcomes, and indemnity payment. Complications were determined to be preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative. Data were analyzed using SPSS software to produce the descriptive statistics. Results: After accounting for duplicates and irrelevant cases, a total of 103 cases were analyzed with more than three-fourths being radical nephrectomies (78%). The most common claim was preoperative negligence (48%); however, negligence in perioperative care received the highest average monetary payment of $5,493,151. Forty-one percent of cases were perioperative with the majority being attributed to vascular injury (46%). The type of perioperative negligence claims and its average payment were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.042). Overall, 57% of cases denied the plaintiff's claims, whereas 28% were awarded. Conclusions: Our data show that although the highest number of cases were caused by preoperative negligence, perioperative negligence accounts for the highest settlement awards. This review provides insights into stages of management in the surgical management of renal cell cancer patients that may be subject to litigation.