Inadequate Consenting for TURP Surgery

Background

Mr H began to experience urgency, poor urinary flow, and distension of his abdomen. He consulted his general practitioner who referred him to a consultant. The consultant carried out various investigations including urodynamics and ultrasound scans. Urodynamics demonstrated bladder instability.

Mr H was prescribed Alfuzosin and Dutasteride, but there was no benefit. He was then listed for a transurethral prostatectomy (TURP). Following his procedure he experienced faecal and urinary incontinence, incomplete emptying of the bladder and a flow of urine restarting after Mr H believed he had finished emptying his bladder. 

Mr H was also unable to sustain an erection, and was advised to undergo a colostomy to manage his faecal incontinence.

The surgical negligence claim was pursued on the basis that Mr H should not have been offered a TURP because he had no objective signs of bladder outflow obstruction and should have been treated instead for bladder instability. 

If there is a body of surgeons who would have offered surgery, then the consenting process was not carried out appropriately. Mr H was not warned of the risks of TURP and not warned that, in his particular circumstances, the operation carried a higher than normal risk of causing urinary incontinence and of producing no benefit.

Settlement

Proceedings were issued and the Defendants initially denied both breach of duty and causation. Eventually, the claim was settled shortly before trial for £48,750, with £18,750 representing special damages.

This case was led by Alan Mendham.

NOTE: While our case studies are designed to give an indication of the outcomes that can be achieved in these circumstances, the compensation awarded in individual cases can vary significantly due to a range of factors, including effects on life expectancy, the severity of the medical negligence that took place, and the financial impact.