What Doctors Didn't Want Me to Know about Gall Bladder Surgery

[Guest guest]

What Doctors Didn't Want Me to Know about Gall Bladder Surgery

 

http://www.a-r-m.org/gallblad.htm

 

by Elizabeth E. LaBozetta, editor, Mongoose News, Central Ohio

 

Patient's-rights Service. Originator of The Support Network (for injury

 

victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 1562 Picard Road, Columbus, Ohio

 

43227-3296 (614) 235-0421

 

In the winter of 1990-91 laparoscopic cholecystectomy was introduced in

 

Ohio. The newspapers ran articles extolling the virtues of this new

 

technology saying: " Patients recover faster and return to work sooner, have

 

smaller scars! The one-day stay in the hospital saves money for health

 

insurance companies! " Prospective patients were given packages of

 

information telling only good things about this new procedure, both

 

hand-made by the medical community itself and also color brochures created

 

by the laparoscopic equipment manufacturers.

 

The color brochures begin with a drawing of a woman bent over in agony and

 

finish with a picture of her after the new laparoscopic cholecystectomy

 

smiling and enjoying time with her family.

 

There were other articles being written by the medical community at this

 

time but these articles were not given out to prospective surgery patients:

 

these were articles written by doctors for doctors and appeared in all the

 

major medical trade journals; these articles, written by the top biliary

 

specialists in America, told a very different story of injury and death

 

than the upbeat and encouraging material created for and handed out to the

 

prospective patients. For example, the printed material I was given says

" bile duct injury is a

 

SLIGHT risk " and if it occurs will be handled properly and promptly. I came

 

to learn the hardest way possible that neither statement was true. And much

too late I learned that at the same time my surgeon was handing

 

out this misleading printed material to prospective surgery patients he had

 

co-authored two articles about laparoscopic cholecystectomy that appeared

 

in two top medical journals and expressed concern about the true injury and

 

death rates. A thing is either dangerous or it isn't, people are being

injured and

 

killed or they are not: both statements cannot be true. Yet my surgeon was

 

handing out material saying one thing to patients and writing the exact

 

opposite to other doctors. The lying started before I ever entered his

office for the first time. In June of

1991 I woke up to a boring pain at the pit of my stomach. I'd

 

been having problems with indigestion at night. My husband had been ill

 

several months, had been hospitalized for a few weeks in the winter, and

 

because I had three children and a home to care for figured that the extra

 

work and stress was getting hold of me. So when I woke up to that continuous

pain I knew I'd better seek relief

 

from my family doctor pronto because with my husband so debilitated and

 

struggling to recover we could not afford two health problems going on at

once.

 

My family doctor prescribed Tagamet, Librax, and Tylenol 3. The symptoms

 

subsided. I was fine for a while then things flared up again. One night in

 

July I started vomiting. I went to the emergency room at Grant Medical

 

Center. I was told I needed my gallbladder out and to " stop fooling around

 

and just have it done-the hospital has this easy new way of doing it, so

 

what am I waiting for? " I was given a referral to a surgeon before leaving.

 

Months later when I was more experienced I wondered at how the E. R. doctor

 

arrived at his conclusion because no definitive testing was performed: all

 

I had was blood work and a short examination. I made an appointment to see

the surgeon I was referred to and got shifted

 

to the newest member of that group since the surgeon whose name I was given

 

was leaving the state. The nurse took a history and the surgeon came in and

did a short

 

examination, set up a couple of tests, told me he was excited because Grant

 

Medical Center had just purchased new laser equipment---laser dissection

 

was superior to electrocautery, he told me, because it cuts and cauterizes

 

at the same time and reduces bleeding.

 

He'd done plenty of these procedures, he assured me, and told me there were

 

no deaths and just one injury---a bile duct was nicked, no big deal, and it

 

He actively discouraged the alternate treatments for gallstones:

 

lithotripsy and ursodiol dissolution, said " once a person makes gallstones

 

they will always make gallstones-surgery is better because it is permanent! "

 

was closed with one stitch. He said that if a bile duct is severed it'd be

 

patched with a piece of small bowel, and if nicked closed with a stitch. I

 

was left with the impression that everything would be taken care of and any

 

potential problems were easily fixable. It was not true.

 

What I wasn't told is that a bile duct injury is a major disaster and is

 

almost irreparable in even the best of hands, requires prompt repair from a

 

biliary specialist at a specialty center equipped to handle such

 

complicated tragedies. Biliary repair is not for the novice: longevity,

 

morbidity and mortality, is determined by early proper repair by

 

experienced hands.

 

I did not know that most injury victims would not be offered that biliary

 

specialist referral at a specialty center either: we'd be " patched " , lied

 

to, and sent home to die wondering what happened to make us so sick.

 

There is a one-month window of opportunity to correctly repair a bile duct

 

injury and its resultant stricture before progressive and permanent liver

 

damage sets in. After that, cirrhosis and fibrosis comes and an infectious

 

process that is almost untreatable. This infectious process erodes heart,

 

liver, joints, spleen and kidneys. The symptoms are all over the body.

 

In 1991 I did not know the things I know now and had no way of knowing that

 

the testing my surgeon ordered, just ultrasound and chest x-ray, is not the

 

definitive testing for gallstones: ERCP and cholecystography are.

 

I did not know about infection possibilities and helicobacter pylori

 

either. I had stomach symptoms. Later I learned almost nobody really needs

 

their gallbladders out at all, that even if a person has gallstones there

 

is nothing wrong about choosing to repeat the non-invasive therapies as

 

many times as necessary.

 

I had the laparoscopic cholecystectomy August 9th, 1991. A resident

 

physician performed it without my knowledge or consent and the consent form

 

I was given makes no mention of a resident substitution for the licensed,

 

credentialed, already-practicing doctor I had chosen to do it. With this

 

new procedure, outcome is directly related to experience; I believed I was

 

getting the man I picked never suspecting that once on the table I'd be

 

getting a trainee.

 

The doctor trainee severed the bile duct, patched it with a piece of small

 

bowel, and I was sent home to die, deliberately kept ignorant of what had

 

happened and left wondering why I was so sick, getting sicker.

 

The horror of those days is beyond words and when I remember all that I

 

suffered in 1991 to 1993 at the hands of my surgeon and his consultants. I

 

have to wonder how they are able to sleep at night: I went back to my

 

surgeon for help when I developed a septic complication and he ran me

 

around to consultants who verbally abused me, called me a " hypochondriac "

 

even in the face of testing that showed abnormal liver functions, heart

 

problems, kidney problems---and none would help me. I got lots of testing

 

but no actual intervention. The doctors I'd see on my own wouldn't take me

 

as a patient, would see me once or twice, maybe order some further testing,

 

then say I had to return to my surgeon for care, kept tossing me back to

 

him. They'd say: " I don't want to get involved " . Involved in what? Nobody

 

would tell me.

 

The medical bills stacked up and up for all that " care " I never actually

 

got. For the first time in my life collection agencies started to call me

 

demanding payment. I owed Grant Medical Center hundreds of dollars. With no

 

job where was the money to come from? My credit rating was ruined.

 

In June of 1992 my surgeon performed another surgery on me, said he was

 

going in to have a look around---and removed a portion of my small bowel

 

without my permission.

 

Later I learn he needed this piece of small bowel to reconstruct that patch

 

made when my bile duct was severed at the first surgery; that " quicky

 

repair " failed and necessitated another " quicky repair " . This is the cheap

 

repair that can be sneaked in through a one-inch cut at the uppermost

 

trocar site, saving money for the insurer and limiting potential for the

 

victim's discovery of the malpractice event.

 

I was cheated forever of a good repair by a specialist at a specialty

 

center. The damage done by a bad failed repair is irreversible and

 

opportunity for best outcome is gone.

 

The opportunity for free choice was removed also; I got what someone else

 

wanted me to have based on needs that were not mine.

 

The medical community, governmental bodies, and legal community tell me

 

over and over: " accidents happen; you should forgive and forget. " I have no

 

trouble forgiving an accident-accidents do happen. But what happened to me

 

and many others like me was no accident: we were not given full information

 

about this new surgery, were misled about the true injury and death rate,

 

were cheated of the opportunity to give an actual informed consent, and

 

were lied to about the actual reparability of a bile duct injury and how

 

often it really occurs in inexperienced hands. We were promised prompt

 

response if injury were to occur and were misled to believe we'd be getting

 

the surgeons we'd chosen from our healthplan booklets when most everyone

 

but the patients knew full well resident physician substitution was the

 

common practice once we were unconscious on the operating table without out

 

knowledge or consent, adding additional risks onto an already risky

procedure.

 

Tired of the run-around and getting no help, I decided to go to Canada to

 

see if I could get help there. I was told to research " bile duct injury "

 

and " bacterial endocarditis, " given a referral to a Canadian surgeon and a

 

liver specialist in Ontario.

 

In February of 1993 I confronted my surgeon with some disturbing

 

discrepancies between my written records and what he had told me,

 

confronted him with some questions he didn't want to answer on my x-ray

 

films, and he dropped me as a patient.

 

In June of 1993 I was very ill and asked a surgeon who'd successfully

 

treated a family member for a difficult cancer for a referral and this man

 

told me: " If I were in your situation this is the man I would get care

 

from: he is the best liver specialist I know " and gave me a referral to a

 

gastroenterologist in New York City. This gastroenterologist turned out to

 

be all the other surgeon said he was and had his partner perform a balloon

 

dilatation of a biliary stricture. I was told it would last for six months

 

and I got two years off it. I was grateful for the help; it bought me a

 

little more time.

 

Later, I sought care in Ohio from a friend of the New York doctor who has a

 

practice at Ohio State University: this man was a top-drawer liver

 

specialist and did something few doctors are willing to do: he wrote me a

 

letter and put the truth down on paper. That letter was the best thing that

 

happened to me since 1991: I'd been mired in a fight for my life against

 

people determined to hide the truth at any cost to me. Finally here were

 

two gastroenterologists in a row standing up for me and doing the right

 

thing. But I had found them on my own.

 

In March of 1993 I placed an ad in our local newspaper hoping to find other

 

injury victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Other victims responded in

 

large numbers, even people from other states responded to the ad. All of us

 

had been mistreated the same standardized ways, coast to coast. All of us

 

were cheated on informed consent. All of us were called " hypochondriacs "

 

when we presented afterwards with serious problems even in the face of

 

abnormal test results. All of us were told " you are the only one having

 

problems like this after that new surgery! " When we got the chance to talk

 

and trade information, we found that several of us had been referred to the

 

same gastroenterologist's group in town and these doctors had told each of

 

us they'd never seen anything like this before. Each of us were told we

 

were the only ones having problems! It was like they had one script to read

 

from and read it to each of these injury victims word for word.

 

I have had quite an education about the medical, legal, governmental

 

bodies, and the media since I started a national support network for injury

 

victims of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. I have listed below some of the

 

most revealing articles written by the medical community itself. They

 

explains everything and should be available from medical libraries.

 

· JAMA May 24/31, 1995 Vol. 273, no. 20 pages 1581-1585

 

" Falling Cholecystectomy Thresholds Since The Introduction Of Laparoscopic

 

Cholecystectomy "

 

· *ARCHIVES OF SURGERY October 1990 Vol. 125, page 1245

 

" Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Threat or Opportunity? "

 

· *THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY March 1991 Vol. 161, page 408

 

" Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Gateway To The Future " .

 

· *PRIMETIME LIVE December 16, 1993 Burrelle's Transcript #328 " Too Good To

 

Be True? "

 

.. Before this happened I never imagined such misery and suffering was

 

possible. I never imagined the irresponsible and callous behavior of people

 

we have placed in positions of trust either.

 

I was used as a guinea pig without our knowledge or consent and left to

 

suffer the consequences and bear the enormous financial burden of the

 

misbehavior and misadventure of doctors. I am now 43 and have irreversible

 

liver damage; the domino effect to all organ systems from this injury will

 

kill me eventually. I have cirrhosis and the consequences of chronic

 

untreatable infection that a bile duct injury brings. I and others like me

 

were sacrificed to build a very lucrative laparoscopic surgery industry.

 

Because I have spoken out about what happened to me, I cannot get medical

 

care no matter where I go or what happens to me. I had to learn as much as

 

I can and treat myself.

 

Would I do things differently knowing silence and compliance is the " price

 

of admission " to medical care in a system that is built on secrecy? No.

 

Sometimes we have to stand up and do what is right no matter the

consequences.

 

I made my choice when I decided to become a patient's rights activist and

 

leader and will accept whatever comes: I made my decision and will have to

 

live, then die, with it.

 

Some things are just worth it.

 

http://www.a-r-m.org/