This case involves the improper placement of an artificial urinary sphincter and an inflatable penile prosthesis in a 46-year-old. The plaintiff underwent a prostatectomy and extensive bladder neck reconstruction. However, after the procedures, the patient suffered from urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Two months afterwards, the patient underwent implant surgery for an artificial urinary sphincter and an inflatable penile prosthesis. Following the surgery, he had continued incontinence and poor function of the implant. After examination, the doctor said the implant was not inflating properly and the cuff of the urinary sphincter was not aligned correctly to the urethra. Subsequently, the patient had to undergo corrective surgery to remove both the artificial sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis and replacing them with functional modifications.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
1. Do you routinely treat patients similar to the one described in the case? Please explain.
2. Have you ever had a patient develop the outcome described in the case? If so, please explain.
3. Do you believe this patient may have had a better outcome if the care rendered had been different?
4. Have you ever served as an expert witness on a case similar to the one described above? If so, please explain.
5. Please tell us why you’re qualified to serve as an expert reviewer of this case.
Expert Witness Response E-008988
My background in urology, including penile implants and artificial sphincters, is extensive. I routinely treat patients similar to the one described in the case, and have seen many instances of incontinence and erectile dysfunction that are similar to the one in this case. My expertise in urology has earned me a spot in the "Best Doctors in America Text". I review 10-15 cases a year, many of which are similar to the case we have here.
About the author
