Journal of Forensic Medicine ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 571-578.DOI: 10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2022.220707

• Cases Study • Previous Articles    

Forensic Analysis of Eighteen Tubal Pregnancy-Related Medical Damage

Ying LI1(), Yong YU2, Xing-hua KOU1, Zhan-long HAN1()   

  1. 1.Beijing Huaxia Evidence Identification Center, Beijing 100089, China
    2.Beijing Source of Judicial Identification Center of Scientific Evidence, Beijing 100062, China
  • Received:2022-07-19 Online:2024-01-17 Published:2023-12-25
  • Contact: Zhan-long HAN

Abstract:

Objective To analyze the cases of medical damage after misdiagnosis of tubal pregnancy, to explore the causes of medical damage, the causal relationship between medical malpractice and the damage consequences, as well as the causative potency, in order to provide evaluation ideas for forensic identification of such cases. Methods Eighteen cases of forensic identification of tubal pregnancy related medical damage were collected and retrospectively analyzed from the aspects of age, maternity history, fertility requirements, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment, medical malpractice, damage consequences, and causative potency. Results All 18 cases were tubal pregnancy, of which 17 cases had medical malpractice, resulting in 14 cases of affected tubal resection, 2 cases of hemorrhagic shock death, 1 case of intrauterine fetal death and affected tubal resection. The other case had the consequence of affected tubal resection, but there was no malpractice in the treatment. Conclusion Correct diagnosis is helpful to make appropriate treatment plan, prevent disease progression and reduce serious adverse consequences and the occurrence of medical disputes. Scientific and reasonable analysis of the causal relationship between medical malpractice and damage consequences and the causative potency is of great significance to the successful settlement of medical disputes.

Key words: forensic medicine, tubal pregnancy, heterotopic pregnancy, medical damage, salpingectomy, assisted reproductive technology, case analysis

CLC Number: