Could thorough documentation have changed the outcome of this trial?

Case: Did the gynecologist have the right to not remove the ovaries?
A 36-year-old woman (G3 P3003) presented to her gynecologist with dysmenorrhea and abnormal uterine bleeding. She reported a family history of ovarian cancer for two generations. She was evaluated and underwent physical examination and preoperative ultrasound examination of pelvic organs. All findings were unremarkable. The gynecologist prescribed oral contraceptives (OCs). After an initial excellent response, the patient reported a reoccurrence of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding 6 years later. The gynecologist suggested options including operative hysteroscopy, dilatation and curettage (D&C), endometrial ablation, off-label use of an intrauterine contraceptive system, or hysterectomy performed via a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal approach. The patient opted for hysteroscopy, D&C, and endometrial ablation and operative laparoscopy. The patient received a diagnosis of stage I endometriosis, which was treated with fulguration.

Two years later, she reported menorrhagia and pelvic pain. The gynecologist suggested trying an OC again, and the patient was given a prescription for a low-dose estrogen/desogestrel combination pill. The patient then changed her mind within 72 hours, never took the OC, and contacted her gynecologist to schedule surgery with him. Upon a return visit to the office, the patient and gynecologist decided to proceed with laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). The written consent included laparoscopic hysterectomy with removal of ovary or ovaries and bilateral fallopian tubes, with a possibility of abdominal hysterectomy.

The gynecologist met with the patient preoperatively to update the history, which was unchanged from her prior office visit. In the ­operating room, “time out” occurred and was documented appropriately—concerns were to be provided to the gynecologist; none were noted.

Intraoperatively, the ovaries were normal in appearance and no endometriosis was noted. The gynecologist proceeded with LAVH and, because the ovaries were normal, did not remove them or the fallopian tubes.

The patient sued the gynecologist on the grounds that, because the originally planned BSO was not performed, she was fearful of developing ovarian cancer in the future.

Preoperative documentation was “sketchy”at best and did not reflect the preoperative discussion and options presented to the patient. There was no documentation of anyone accompanying the patient at the preoperative office visit.

The case went to trial.

What’s the verdict?