.
Feedback

Gynecologist Accused of Robotic Surgery Mistakes

A doctor who practices in Mission Viejo is accused of botching one surgery and missing a cyst before performing another.

A Mission Viejo doctor was accused this month of major mistakes during two robotic surgeries. The accusations could cost him his medical license.

During one surgery, Dr. Aram Bonni is accused of removing a cyst discovered while he operated on a 78-year-old woman's vaginal hernia in 2010. He did not discuss the removal with the patient or her family, according to the accusation filed on Aug. 1 by Linda K. Whitney, executive director of the Medical Board of California.

The cyst should have been discovered before the surgery, Whitney said. Failing to do so constitutes "gross negligence," she said.

Bonni should have either ended the surgery and discussed the cyst with the patient or contacted the patient's family to discuss the situation, the MBC executive director said.

Instead he is accused of abandoning the original hernia surgery to remove the cyst. This required Bonni to cut into the woman's intestine, and that incision required a colorectal surgeon to cut into the woman's abdominal wall.

This type of cyst is usually benign, according to Medscape, but the risk of cancer is higher in women after menopause.

During the other surgery, also in 2010, Bonni is accused of accidentally cutting a vein, causing a 77-year-old woman to lose four pints of blood before another surgeon stopped the bleeding.

That kind of injury to the vein is "an extremely rare complication that should have been avoided with proper surgical technique," Whitney wrote.

Bonni owns a private practice at 26012 Marguerite Parkway called Urogynecology Associates, also known as Orange County Urogynecology. Other locations are listed in Ladera Ranch, Santa Ana and Los Angeles on the company's website.

Bonni is accused of unprofessional conduct, gross negligence, dishonesty and incompetence based on the two surgeries.

A message left with Urogynecology Associates after business hours Thursday has not been returned.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mission Viejo Patch? Find your Local Patch »

sharon girulat August 17, 2012 at 04:05 pm
Is the implication here that doctors who do NOT use robotics fail less often? Cause I don't see that, or expect that to be true. Surgery is always dangerous and not to be taken lightly. Why is this an issue, here.
IMHO, at age 66, or hers, if the doctor is in, and finds something, I don't want him to 'talk about it'... I want him to take care of it! Robotic or not; and whether he saw it before or not! Additional surgery / open /close is not good for anyone, let alone our age which may, or may not, have additional heart-related, etc complications. What did her signed 'approval' indicate...and where were the family members as this occurred; on site or not. If the doctor operates without a clause that acknowledges potential loss of life, when performing surgery, he should be fine for bad business process, not surgery malfeasance. And as for the erroneous vein cut; well, they happen without robotics, too. Just as death from a non-surgical lithotriopsy killed my otherwise healthy, younger neighbor. No wonder we have high medical costs; doctors doing even seemingly appropriate things get sued. I think these people should have to post a 'bond' to sue and, if settled against them, they owe the courts and doctor for defamation, legal fees and time spent defending themselves.
Peter Schelden (Editor) August 17, 2012 at 04:47 pm
A few points, Sharon: 1) this article does not state that robotic surgery is any more or less dangerous than any other kind; 2) this is not a lawsuit--it is a state investigation into Dr. Bonni's medical practice--it's a professional review that is triggered when someone suspects gross negligence, dishonesty, etc. 3) undoubtedly accidents do happen during surgeries, and sometimes these are not preventable. But the complaint states that Dr. Bonni should have been able to feel the cyst he removed during a pre-operative exam that was either not conducted or conducted insufficiently.
obgyn800 August 22, 2012 at 11:43 am
Peter:
medical boards website says that he has not had a hearing nor has he been convicted of anything. allegations and commenting on them without knowing details are at best hear say... btw not all cysts are seen on imaging or physical exams if conducted as properly as possible... so without proper knowledge how can you suggest that this was the case?!
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming theRead More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Tom Thumb June 16, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Shoot, I don't know about that. What we are hearing now is Obama/McCain are pushing to arm theRead More rebels who are supporting and are part of Al Qaeda: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It mightRead More even flourish on reddit.
You're welcome!
Panglonymous June 6, 2013 at 07:35 pm
Graphs like this are sometimes created (and/or distributed) by persons with a deep understandingRead More (and/or appreciation) of things like this: 3. Something uncommon or unusual. 4. ~Astrophysics~ A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted. 5. ~Mathematics~ A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.
Shripathi Kamath June 7, 2013 at 11:28 am
Don't toy with me, what happened to 1. and 2.? Is this some sort of Star Wars Jedi mind trickery onRead More sequence?
Gregory Raths June 6, 2013 at 11:57 am
Are you looking for active duty military personnel and their families?
Julie Flores June 6, 2013 at 12:04 pm
It's not that he's ridiculous (he is), it's that people actually voted for him.
Panglonymous June 6, 2013 at 01:54 pm
Rosemary's Baba?
Dan Avery June 6, 2013 at 09:39 pm
Rosemary's baba. No that's the dude named Greg with the home made signs that is running forRead More congress down here. What a moroon...
Panglonymous June 4, 2013 at 10:47 am
Crazy Mission Viejite: Stop enabling the Christian narcissists. How much more about them canRead More everything be?
Panglonymous June 4, 2013 at 10:47 am
And don't blame the Lord, infidel. He is, like, totally gobsmacked his own dam sef.
Panglonymous June 4, 2013 at 10:48 am
And He looked upon His Creation and He said, "This is good??"