BACKGROUND: Plastic surgery is a medical specialty that is particularly at risk of unwarranted claims. Most complaints regarding plastic surgery are not a consequence of technical failures but rather of inadequate criteria of patient selection, failure in surgical indication, and lack of effective communication between the patient and the surgeon. Training, careful use of techniques, adopting precautions, compliance with safety regulations, and the informed consent document are fundamental principles of defensive medical practice. Moreover, documenting objective information about the surgery in the medical records validates the work of the plastic surgeon and ensures that procedures are productive and technical. The aim of this study was to develop a tool for preventing medical litigations in augmentation mammaplasty based on data expressed on the scale from I to IV. METHODS: Forty patients with an indication for augmentation mammaplasty were evaluated. All the patients were subjected to anatomical measurements, which were photographically documented, and the hereditary and congenital diseases of the patients presenting for breast augmentation were recorded. In addition, all the patients were informed about the indication and surgical procedure to be performed. They agreed with the surgical indication and provided informed consent. RESULTS: The follow-up period was 6 months. All the patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the results obtained after the procedure, and no cases of complaints or disputes were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose the regular use of tables and classifications for the selection of implants, with the aim of establishing surgical indication as an objective parameter, facilitating patients' understanding of the procedure, and preventing litigation.
Breast implantation; Mammaplasty; Jurisprudence
