A Retrospective Analysis of Urethroplasty and Medical Malpractice

Objective: To review malpractice suits stemming from urethroplasty intervention, which is the standard of care for patients suffering from urethral strictures. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the LexisNexis and Westlaw databases between 1980 and 2024. Each database was queried with “urethroplasty” which yielded 48 cases and 20 jury verdicts/settlements in the LexisNexis database and 46 cases and 14 jury verdicts in the Westlaw database. Selected cases were reviewed variables including chief allegation, litigation location, plaintiff demand, plaintiff award, and verdict. Exclusion criteria included but were not limited to lawsuits regarding non-urologic surgery necessitating urethroplasty and litigation based on traumatic injury necessitating urethroplasty. Results: After manual review of 128 cases in the LexisNexis and Westlaw databases, 12 met inclusion criteria. 5 (42%) cases sued for deformation of the genitalia after urethroplasty, 2 (17%) sued for failure of informed consent, 2 (17%) sued for erectile dysfunction, 1 (8%) sued for a post-operative venous thrombosis, 1 (8%) sued for post-operative infection, and 1 (8%) sued for failure to treat. Six (50%) cases resulted in plaintiff awards; 3 of these were settled before a final verdict. Plaintiff awards varied from $72,500-$810,000. Of the 12 cases, 2 (17%) occurred in California and 2 (17%) occurred in Illinois; the remaining locations were isolated. Conclusion: The most common cause of litigation following urethroplasty was centered on the perceived deformation of the genitalia after urethroplasty, which underscores the significance of urologists setting realistic expectations for patients with thorough pre-operative counseling.