Disasters of endoscopic surgery and how to avoid them: error analysis

For every innovation there are two sides to consider. For endoscopic surgery the positive side is more comfort for the patient, and the negative side is new complications, even disasters, such as injuries to organs (e.g., the bowel), vessels, and the common bile duct. These disasters are rare and seldom reported in the scientific world, as at conferences, at symposiums, and in publications. Today there are many methods for testing an innovation (controlled clinical trials, consensus conferences, audits, and confidential inquiries). Reporting "complications," however, does not help to avoid them. We need real methods for avoiding negative failures. The failure analysis is the method of choice in industry. If an airplane crashes, error analysis starts immediately. Humans make errors, and making errors means punishment. Failure analysis means rigorously and objectively investigating a clinical situation to find clinical relevant information for avoiding these negative events in the future. Error analysis has four important steps: (1) What was the clinical situation? (2) What has happened? (3) Most important: Why did it happen? (4) How do we avoid the negative event or disaster in the future. Error analysis has decisive advantages. It is easy to perform; it supplies clinically relevant information to help avoid it; and there is no need for money. It can be done everywhere; and the information is available in a short time. The other side of the coin is that error analysis is of course retrospective, it may not be objective, and most important it will probably have legal consequences. To be more effective in medicine and surgery we must handle our errors using a different approach. According to Sir Karl Popper: "The consituation is that we have to learn from our errors. To cover up failure is therefore the biggest intellectual sin.