Truth and slander in plastic surgery

In the early 2000-ies in the media thundered scandal: 50-the summer inhabitant of Kiev Elena Petrova has accused plastic surgeon Roman L. that she unsuccessfully made a facelift. According to patient she wanted to remove the bags under the eyes and nasolabial folds, and when we woke her up, saw that the surgeon gave her a circular facelift. She later went to court with a lawsuit against the doctor, accusing him that he was disfigured. For many years Petrov was the heroine of numerous television shows on the subject of plastic surgery and accused the Novel of L. of incompetence. However, despite the publicity in the media and on Internet forums is just the same retelling of the charges, and the position of Dr. no. We asked the opinion of the other side, and we know the sequel to this sensational story.

In 2008, the Darnitsky district court in the capital ordered the surgeon conviction. The court immediately released the accused from criminal liability on the Statute of limitations (according to article 140 of the criminal code “Improper fulfilment of professional duties”). Also, the surgeon was supposed by the court to pay the Helen moral damages in the amount of 30 thousand UAH. However, the doctor with the decision of the court did not agree and filed an appeal. As a result, the Board of the high specialized court reversed the decision of the court of first instance and sent the case back for retrial to the first instance. After re-examination in the same Darnitskiy district court of all charges against the doctor were dropped and the case at the request of the Prosecutor was sent for additional investigation. At the moment the case in 2014 lies in the Darnytsia district police, and it does not maintain any actions.

The panel of judges took into consideration the explanations of the surgeon, which fully confirms the medical paper and the explanations of the witnesses. According to these documents, in 2003 the patient was performed operation “frontotemporal lifting”, and her consent to this operation was recorded signature of the individual in history. The surgery lasted about 9 hours. On day 14 after surgery, Elena removed the stitches, and she went to England. It was the last time she appeared at the clinic of plastic surgery. Re-turned to the surgeon Petrova just two years after the operation. At this point, she accused the doctor that he was disfigured. On the face of the client was scarring, but given that since the operation three years later, their origin was impossible to install.

The investigation into this story revealed that immediately after the operation the patient’s plastic surgeon got a job in England. There, on the ocean, she sold hot dogs. British surgeons, who then conducted the examination, concluded that due to the large temperature difference in the workplace – Elena steam came from the hot dogs and frosty air from the ocean, she escalated the herpes infection. In the case was the testimony of a neighbor of Helena, who also warned her that you can’t do that. In addition, witnesses testified that, in England, Helen and her civil 71-year-old husband were fighting a lot, and they came to the police.

The reason for the appearance of scars has not been established, however, the case is the testimony of a witness who saw that Petrova was injured in the postoperative period from her husband when he found out that she had plastic surgery.

The Prosecutor’s office Elena turned once demanded the doctor 60 thousand dollars in compensation and received from him a refusal.

The investigator of Prosecutor’s office of Darnytskyi Dmitry Sysoev, who brought the case, the surgeon refused to conduct further examinations for some strange reason, which violated his right to defense. In fact, the case sent to the court, was based only on some assumptions. No witnesses were interviewed, whose testimony was essential, and was not carried out further examination. We can only guess why this was not done initially. But Darnitskiy court in initial consideration of the case decided to conduct the supplementary examination at the request of the surgeon. According to the conclusion of re-examination, scarring of the face could occur due to violation of the recommendations of the doctor in the postoperative period.

However, judge Alena Skarina for unknown reasons, did not take into account either the testimony of the witnesses, no conclusion of re-examination and issued a guilty verdict, which was cancelled by the Board of the high specialized court.

This raises a number of questions. Why the investigator didn’t pay attention for a period of two years since the surgery to the treatment in law enforcement? Why he refused the surgeon to conduct further examinations? With these questions we addressed to the Dmitry Alexandrovich.

“I was then an investigator (now Dmitry S. working in the city Prosecutor’s office. – approx. ed.), my job was to qualify the actions of the man: if he is guilty, what was the article, and refer the case to the court. What was in the court I don’t know because it does not support the prosecution. When I investigated this case, I’m not out of the blue did everything. But I’m not a doctor, and I don’t know whether he did or wrong. We are therefore in the framework of the investigation, appoint the necessary expertise, and, as I recall, they had one or two. I was also appointed a Commission examination, which included several specialists. And the Commission has concluded that it is technically correctly performed the procedure. After that, we presented the man of the charges under article 140, and he went to court. Pre-trial investigation, which I conducted, but then the fate of the case, I don’t know: was it re-examination or not,” said the former investigator.

Here a former investigator, to put it mildly, not absolutely precisely expressed. We got acquainted with the materials of the examination. The conclusion is: “cicatricial changes could occur as a result of technically incorrect operation” as well as of injuries and disorders of the recommendations of the physician in the postoperative period. It is necessary to clarify the situation. The examination provides an answer only to the questions posed by the investigator. The investigator, in turn, according to the CPC, should make every effort to ascertain the truth. To the question, why is it that of all questions that could shed light and set a real picture of what happened and who asked to put before the initial examination the surgeon which became the basis for sentence cancellation, the investigator selected only those that pozloslovit blame the doctor, Dmitry Sysoev answered, Recalling a bad memory. And the question is, why in his opinion in court was not proven doctors, Sysoev called “different reasons”.

“Various reasons may be. You see, the person pleads not guilty, believes that he is right. And the doctors who gave an opinion – you are wrong. Maybe he asked the court to appoint some other examination. I don’t know, I can only guess… I remember that quick sentence was not there. If he was, I would know. So they’re in there long mind, just enough, that I was no longer working. In this case, there are subjective moments, the man himself is on the operating table is always dangerous. At that time, looking at the case files, we concluded that to blame the doctor. But if the court felt differently, it means that it is.”

The case was brought to court in total 8 years. During this time, it was possible to carry out all the necessary investigations to establish the truth. However, at the request of the representative of Prosecutor’s office of Darnytskyi court remanded the case for further investigation. And what in this case was engaged in the Prosecutor’s office those 8 years? Is it because returned the case to make verdict? These questions still remain unanswered.

In the midst of scandal Petrova vs plastic surgeon performed another of his former patient, Elena Dorosh. In 2011 she accused the doctor that he put implants in the breast without removing the fibroadenoma, after which she parted seams. In the history of the disease, where there is consent of the patient for surgery, however, is not indicated her desire to remove the fibroadenoma. The divergence of sutures in medical practice, is solved by re-operation, but in this case, the patient from repeated surgical intervention altogether and be treated at the place of residence in Sweden, where she put in a drain, and the wound successfully healed. Then in one of clinics of Kiev she removed the implants (in this case it is not clear why both sides) and after a while put in again.

From the clinic Elena demanded compensation in the amount of half a million hryvnia. Interestingly, after plastic surgery Dorosh was treated in several medical institutions, and in none of them it did not remove the fibroadenoma. In the suburbs of Kiev in the clinic she underwent drainage. Then in another private clinic she removed the implants. And nowhere to re-endoprosthesis replacement of her tumor was removed.

Medical literature has no clear answer to the question of mandatory removal of fibroadenomas in conducting mammoplasty, but it is clear that their presence can lead to complications and joints.

Despite the fact that the prosecution did not find grounds to initiate a criminal case against Roman L., the history of Helen Dorosh was submitted for examination. Clinical-expert Commission of the Ministry of health of Ukraine gave a clear conclusion: the presence of fibroadenomas had no direct influence on the process and outcome of endoprosthesis replacement of mammary glands.

“The doctor immediately asked me to return the money that I have made the necessary surgery, and said can I do it on the centre free of charge. But then I realized that back in that surgery back can not!”, – explained the reasons for its rejection of the re-intervention of a doctor Elena Dorosh in one of his interviews.