Haemorrhage caused by abdominoperineal excision of the rectum
AI-generated summary
A 62-year-old woman died of uncontrollable haemorrhage following an abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) at a remote hospital. The coroner found the operation itself was inappropriate: performed for undiagnosed chronic pain in a patient with extensive surgical history, rather than for malignancy. The surgery should not have been attempted at Mt Isa Hospital by an insufficiently experienced surgeon without specialist anaesthetic support. The patient had not undergone adequate psychological assessment or pain management consultation. During surgery, the surgeon used an unconventional perineal-first approach that multiple experts considered dangerous and unnecessary. When massive haemorrhage occurred, management was delayed by inadequate preoperative blood work, blood product availability, and failure of the anaesthetist to order critical tests promptly. The coroner concluded the death was preventable had appropriate patient selection, surgical approach, facility choice, and emergency response been implemented.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
colorectal surgeryanaesthesiapsychologygynaecologyemergency medicine
abdominoperineal excision of rectum (aper)colostomycentral venous catheter insertionblood transfusion
Contributing factors
Inappropriate surgical indication—operation performed for undiagnosed chronic pain rather than malignancy
Inadequate preoperative psychological assessment and pain management consultation
Patient selection error; operation attempted despite high risk and unproven benefit
Unconventional and dangerous surgical technique—perineal-first approach initiated without adequate visualisation
Inadequate surgeon experience—approximately one APER per year, most recent 2 years prior
Absence of specialist anaesthetist support for major elective surgery
Remote hospital setting with limited ICU capabilities
Inadequate preoperative assessment by anaesthetist—failure to order blood tests, coagulation profile, group and hold, or blood transfusion
Failure to place arterial line for blood pressure monitoring
Delayed and inadequate blood product replacement in response to massive haemorrhage
Delayed ordering of blood tests and coagulation studies after haemorrhage detected
Failure to draw blood sample before O-negative transfusion, delaying cross-matching
Inadequate senior anaesthetic supervision during emergency
Failure of referral anaesthetist to assume leadership role despite worsening condition
Coroner's recommendations
Adopt clinical services framework defining which procedures can be performed based on surgeon experience and institutional capacity—currently Mt Isa performs elective open abdominal surgery only for caesarean sections
Establish formal mortality and morbidity committee with patient safety officer oversight to investigate adverse events
Implement mandatory preoperative assessment protocols for major surgery including blood tests, coagulation profile, and group and hold
Require specialist anaesthetic cover for major elective surgery, not provided by general practitioners with part-time anaesthetic duties
Establish professional leadership and mentorship in anaesthetics department to ensure compliance with standards of practice
Implement mandatory consultation with pain management specialists and psychological assessment before undertaking radical surgery for chronic pain of undetermined aetiology
Require clear referral protocols defining where major elective procedures should be performed based on institutional capabilities
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.