Failure to respond to surgical complication and infection
A 74-year-old woman came to see Ophthalmologist A for evaluation of her right-eye cataract.
by Wayne Wenske, Senior Marketing Specialist; and
Stacey Agnew, MBA, Risk Management Specialist
Presentation and physician action
A 74-year-old woman with a history of diabetes came to see Ophthalmologist A for evaluation of her right-eye cataract. After examination, cataract surgery was recommended and scheduled.
On November 23, Ophthalmologist A took the patient to surgery and performed right-eye cataract surgery. Surgery was completed by posterior capsular rupture and an anterior chamber lens was placed. During the procedure, lens fragments dislocated into the vitreous, with vitreous and anterior chamber hemorrhage. Operative notes describe the lens fragments being retrieved using a lens spoon. Five sutures were used to close the wound.
At the patient’s postoperative exam on November 24, the patient’s visual acuity was documented as 20/100 eccentric view. The patient had a hyphema in the lower third of the anterior chamber with a clot near the wound and “posterior chamber intraocular lens” was described as being in “good position.” The patient was prescribed antibiotics and anti-inflammatory eye drops and a follow-up visit was scheduled in 10 days.
On November 30, the patient returned to Ophthalmologist A because her right eye was throbbing, scratchy, watery, and leaking “bloody matter.” Upon examination, no view of the retina was possible due to vitreous hemorrhage. Topical steroids and antibiotics were continued, and new prescriptions for diclofenac and cyclopentolate were given to the patient.
On December 4, the patient returned and reported continued throbbing and leaking of bloody matter from the right eye. Visual acuity was recorded as a light perception only. There were no significant changes in the described physical exam of the eye with no view of the retina due to vitreous hemorrhage.
On December 7, the patient returned to the clinic with continued complaints of throbbing, red eye with matter. Ophthalmologist A administered a triamcinolone injection.
On December 11, the patient returned with worsening leaking, decreased vision, and acute pain. The patient’s vision was documented as having no light perception. Wound dehiscence was noted at the 11 o’clock position, with iris prolapse and signs of endophthalmitis. The anterior chamber intraocular lens was described as “in good position.” Again, no view of the retina was possible due to vitreous hemorrhage.
Ophthalmologist A diagnosed endophthalmitis and referred the patient to Retina Specialist A for a same-day visit. Retina Specialist A confirmed blindness in the right eye and recommended enucleation. A second opinion agreed with Retina Specialist A.
On December 15, the patient underwent enucleation surgery of the right eye. Pathologic study of the specimen included bacterial endophthalmitis growing two organisms, total retinal detachment, subretinal hemorrhage, and vitreous hemorrhage.
Allegations
The patient filed a lawsuit against Ophthalmologist A with numerous allegations, including:
- failure to appropriately manage and/or respond to a surgical complication;
- using an outmoded and dangerous technique during surgery (lens spoon);
- failure to conduct proper follow-up examinations; and
- failure to properly recognize, diagnose, and treat infectious endophthalmitis.
Legal implications
Ophthalmology consultants for the defense were critical of Ophthalmologist A’s performance of the cataract surgery. One questioned the practice of using a lens spoon to retrieve lens fragments, due to this technique bringing increased risk of vitreous traction and retinal injury.
The same consultant stated that Ophthalmologist A’s surgical approach led to the need for five sutures to close the wound, more than the usual number, increasing the risk of infection. This consultant also questioned why Ophthalmologist A would treat the patient with a triamcinolone injection.
Other defense consultants wondered why Ophthalmologist A did not suspect endophthalmitis earlier, as redness, pain, and discharge are classic indicators of the condition. Numerous documentation errors were also noted, including four consecutive exams where the intraocular lens implant was described as being in the posterior chamber.
One consultant questioned why Ophthalmologist A did not react promptly to the serious surgical complication that occurred.
Consultants for the plaintiff expressed similar opinions. One consultant felt that had Ophthalmologist A stopped surgery after the bisected cataract dislocated posteriorly into the vitreous and immediately referred the patient to a qualified retina-vitreous specialist, a better outcome may have been achieved. Instead, referrals were delayed, which diminished chances for the patient to recover vision and keep her right eye.
Disposition
This case was settled on behalf of Ophthalmologist A.
About improper performance.
Disclaimer
This closed claim study is based on an actual malpractice claim from Texas Medical Liability Trust. This case illustrates how action or inaction on the part of the physicians led to allegations of professional liability, and how risk management techniques may have either prevented the outcome or increased the physician’s defensibility. This study has been modified to protect the privacy of the physicians and the patient.
Subscribe to Case Closed to receive insights from resolved cases.
You’ll receive two closed claim studies every month. These closed claim studies are provided to help physicians improve patient safety and reduce potential liability risks that may arise when treating patients.
Related Case Studies
Discover more insights, stories, and resources to keep you informed and inspired.
Retained foreign object
Improper performance of TURP
