SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Litigation meets evidence: a novel approach to understanding preventable complications in breast reconstruction.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast reconstruction surgery can result in various complications, some of which lead to medical litigation or formal mediation. However, systematic comparison of these medicolegal cases with evidence-based preventive strategies from randomized controlled trials remains unexplored. This study employed a novel methodology comparing complications resulting in litigation/mediation with contemporary randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, combining systematic review of RCTs (PubMed, 2020-2024) following modified PRISMA guidelines with comprehensive analysis of medical litigation and mediation databases. Narrative synthesis compared complication patterns between medicolegal cases and preventive interventions evaluated in RCTs. Nineteen RCTs and seven medicolegal cases (5 litigations, 2 mediations) were analyzed. All cases involved complications for which preventive strategies have been evaluated in recent RCTs. In implant-based reconstruction, tissue necrosis leading to implant loss (3/5 cases, 60%) occurred despite RCT evidence showing 50% reduction with indocyanine green assessment and 37% reduction with prostaglandin E1 (34.3% to 21.6%, p < 0.001). Both autologous reconstruction cases developed abdominal hernias, contrasting with 1-3% rates using synthetic mesh versus 38% with biological materials (p < 0.001). None of these cases documented use of such strategies. Informed consent violations were identified in 86% of cases. Total awards (compensation plus consolation money) ranged from $0-34,509, granted in 86% (6/7) of cases. These findings suggest a gap between available evidence and documented clinical practice in complications severe enough to prompt litigation or formal mediation. The preventive strategies identified in this analysis-including indocyanine green perfusion assessment, prostaglandin E1 administration, and selective synthetic mesh reinforcement-represent potential opportunities for reducing catastrophic complications and medicolegal risk, though implementation must be individualized based on patient-specific factors, risks, costs, and resource availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.