Kernt B, Neu J
Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Innenstadt der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Nußbaumstraße 20, 80336, München, Deutschland.
Unfallchirurg. 2011 Jun;114(6):538-40. doi: 10.1007/s00113-011-2039-1.
A 72-year-old man suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome had undergone minimally invasive decompression by using a SafeGuard® Mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release System. After the operation the patient presented with a paraesthesia in the median nerve distribution. Two months later an operative revision was performed in another hospital. A partial transection of the median nerve and an incomplete release was seen. The surgeon of the first operation stated that detailed informed consent including the risk of iatrogenic nerve injury had been obtained. Furthermore he referred to the operative report, which mentioned the accuracy of the procedure without any problems or complications during surgery. The Arbitration Board stated that the operative report could not exculpate the surgeon because the findings of the operative revision disagreed with the first operative report. The expert opinion declared that the lesion was a result of an inaccurate operative procedure as the surgeon was not able to demonstrate an anatomical variation of the median nerve.
一名患有腕管综合征的72岁男性接受了使用SafeGuard®微型开放式腕管松解系统进行的微创减压手术。术后患者出现正中神经分布区域的感觉异常。两个月后，患者在另一家医院接受了手术翻修。术中发现正中神经部分横断且松解不完全。首次手术的外科医生表示，已获得包括医源性神经损伤风险在内的详细知情同意书。此外，他提及了手术报告，该报告称手术过程准确无误，术中未出现任何问题或并发症。仲裁委员会表示，手术报告不能免除外科医生的责任，因为手术翻修的结果与首次手术报告不一致。专家意见表明，由于外科医生无法证明正中神经存在解剖变异，该损伤是手术操作不准确所致。
