Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Research conducted by Johns Hopkins doctors has found that an estimated forty percent of hospital websites advertise the use of robotic surgery as superior to conventional surgery. However, there is a no evidence to suggest these statements are true. In particular, hospitals often exaggerate the benefits associated with robotic surgery while ignoring the risks.

A copy of the article about the study can be found here.

Johns Hopkins researchers warn that the lack of candor in promotional materials is potentially dangerous for various reasons. Much of the positive advertisement is provided by the surgical robots' manufacturers, as opposed to independent analysis by doctors or hospitals. This is a concern because the general public relies on hospitals, including their websites, to provide honest and complete information. Essentially, many would consider the material on a hospital's website to be as if it was coming directly from a physician.

The study conducted by Johns Hopkins researches yielded startling results. Of the sample of hospital websites studied, forty-one percent described the availability of robotic surgery. Of those, eighty-nine percent (89%) indicated that robotic surgery is clinically superior over conventional surgery. Specifically, eighty-five percent (85%) said there would be less pain, eighty-six percent (86%) said there would be a shorter recovery, eighty percent (80%) said there would be less scarring and seventy-eight percent (78%) said there would be less blood loss. Shockingly, none of the websites mentioned any risks associated with robotic surgery at all.

The researchers at Johns Hopkins warn that the continuation of this type of behavior by hospitals could ultimately result in medical malpractice suits. When hospitals rely on device manufacturer's to provide patients with information, and the information is not substantiated, hospitals are providing content that is dishonest and misleading. While the use of surgical robots to perform minimally-invasive common procedures has grown at a rapid pace, claims of smaller incisions, more precise results, less pain and shorter recovery time remain unsubstantiated. However, as more and more hospitals buy this expensive equipment, they continue advertising these results to patients. In actuality, studies have shown that robotic surgeries present numerous risks because they take more time and keep patients under anesthesia for longer, in addition to the fact that they are more costly; but none of these concerns are usually provided by hospitals promoting its use.

The biggest problem with a hospital’s use of manufacturer-provided information is the inherent conflict of interest. Hospitals hold a trusted role as medical advisors and must make all effort not to misinform patients. To use the information provided by manufacturers of the robotic devices without verifying the accuracy and truthfulness of that information is a violation of public trust, according to Johns Hopkins researchers.

This is an important study because it shows that there is possibly significant malpractice at many of Maryland's hospitals as a result of the failure to adequately inform patients regarding their care.

In 2007, an active lieutenant with his local Sheriff’s Department made the decision to undergo weight-loss surgery. At 6-foot-1 and 375 pounds, the risk of a routine laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery seemed slight compared to his many weight-related health risks. Then suddenly, the day after the procedure, he went into respiratory failure and had to be placed in critical care. For over a week, he showed signs of complications but doctors did not take him back into surgery to repair the problem for eight days. This was a serious medical error, even based on the testimony of the hospital’s own experts who admitted that most bariatric doctors would have performed the surgery as soon as the patient exhibited the symptoms, but certainly no later than six days after.

As a result of the delay in treatment, the patient’s blood pressure dropped and he experienced a “low-flow stroke,’ meaning his brain was not getting enough blood, causing him to remain comatose for two weeks following the surgery. Then, in another shocking medical mistake, doctors failed to give him eye drops while he remained on a respirator which resulted in a permanent loss of his eyesight. This avoidable complication was a clear breach of the standard of care.

The man’s family filed a medical malpractice suit against the hospital alleging medical negligence and fraud. Now brain damaged and confined to a wheelchair, this once active lieutenant has lost his ability to speak, walk and perform basic tasks such as feeding or bathing himself, but he understands what has happened to him. The family’s attorney insisted that this tragic outcome was the result of improper care by an inexperienced doctor. Specifically, the hospital advertises that its bariatric surgeons have performed upwards of fifty surgeries when, in fact, this man’s surgeon had performed only about twenty.

On January 23, 2012, after finding that the accreditation advertising was fraudulent and the care received by the patient in this case was negligent, a jury returned an award of approximately $178 million dollars in damages in favor of the patient and his family. The hospital has since indicated that they intend to appeal the verdict but the family’s attorney maintains that this is the appropriate outcome given the circumstances.

A copy of the article regarding the lawsuit can be found here.

For families experiencing the devastation associated with serious medical negligence, it is important to investigate whether a medical malpractice claim is warranted due to the expense associated with long-term care. As an experienced medical malpractice attorney I routinely handle cases that involve catastrophic injuries, and have handled cases just like this. These cases are extremely complicated and require expertise that most general personal injury attorneys do not have.