Re: [infoguys-list] eyes have it: infection
- Amy -
It appears you have a lot of smoke and mirrors here. I will try to make my
response a lot briefer than your outline. I see a series of no-nos mostly
stemming from the surgeon.
For starters, the sterilization of the instruments has no bearing at all on
whether the water was tap or distilled. Distilled is used to protect the
integrity of the lens since tap water contains abrasive salts. The fact that
the ink was gone is probably irrelevant if the written notes indicate that the
proper temp was set. However, that is definitely an issue to be raised with
the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations who will
not be very happy little campers.
Was the doctor aware that she had taken Motrin pre-op? If not, why not? He
should have asked.
Why did she, an MD and her husband, an MD, allow her to take the Motrin
What antibiotics were used prophylactically either pre or during surgery?
Hopefully 1 gm Ancef or something similar which is the norm in most facilities.
What did they clean her hair with post-op? The norm would be peroxide and
distilled water. Did they use tap water?
Implants are much more subjective to infections because of the introduction
of foreign matter. This is a unique situation. However, I believe the
plaintiff does have a hard row to hoe since both she and her husband have MD after
their names and a jury is not going to be as sympathetic as it would be
toward a normal lay person..
Since the surgery lasted more than twice as long as it should have, I would
bet that there was cross-contamination on the surgical tray between the chin
and eyelid instruments. Regardless, because of the excessive bleeding, it
would be my guess that they did not get all of the blood out of all of the
pockets as well.
There are many, many species of mycobacteria. Most are environmental
organisms and are ubiquitous in that they are everywhere. However, they are only
responsible for opportunistic infections which is almost non-occurring in
immunocompetent individuals. The Prednisone, I believe, is as guilty and
responsible as the contamination itself.
They thrive in wet environments (bloody instruments/used gauzes, etc) and
they have an insatiable appetite for oxygen. The longer the bloody surgical
instruments are exposed to the environment, the more apt they are to become
contaminated. No folks, medical facilities are not aseptic contrary to what one
would think and that is why so many people contract infections in the
1) Excessive bleeding
2) Extended exposure due to lengthier procedure caused by the surgeon’s error
3) Prednisone as a steroid is KNOWN to delay wound healing AND suppress the
4) No immediate post-op culture and sensitivity when prolonged swelling
In closing I will say that I do not believe it was the endoscope. Although
there might have been improper cleansing of the surgical incisions post-op
coupled with a cross contamination of the actual surgical instruments, I
believe it was a combination of many factors. However, the Prednisone was the
biggest mistake in my opinion. Also, remember that even though the endoscope
was sterilized, it still had instruments inserted in it during surgery. I
would say that the liability is on the surgeon and that the bleeding was a very
significant factor. Delayed surgery results in longer exposure to aerobic
pathogens. Hello, it is a medical facility with sick people.
I would suggest you back off the improperly sterilized endoscope and
emphasize more on the cross-contamination due to the overall surgical procedure and
the lack of ordinary care and treatment under the circumstances presented.
Sarkis Detective Agency
1346 Ethel Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
a military veteran !
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]