[Urologic surgery and risks of complaints in medical responsibility]

The card-index study of specialized insurance companies allowed the analysis of 82 cases concerning urological surgical procedures. Forty-two cases went to the Civil Court, 10 to the Penal Court and 5 to the Administrative Tribunal, while 5 cases were simply declared to insurance companies without judiciary consequences. Sixty-two cases concerned private plaintiffs surgeons and 34 cases concerned non specialist urologic surgeons. Sixteen plaintiffs were compensated, 9 after a conciliatory agreement and 7 after trial. There were no penal condemnations (one case on the waiting list). Impotence was the most frequent cause for complaint which was compensated. Next, came incontinence generally secondary to endoscopic resection. Retrospectively, 19 cases seemed to be unwarranted due to the dishonesty of patients (3 patients were prosecuted for unwarranted procedures). On the other hand, 32 cases seemed to be due to a lack of information given to the patients themselves or to their families, either before of after the incriminated act. The risk of prosecution is relatively low in urology. It could be decreased by careful management of the medical chart, by rapid analysis of complications and by a constant effort to inform the patient and his family.