In a shocking turn of events, a jailed surgeon, Ian Paterson, has made a startling declaration: he insists he "never intentionally left breast tissue behind" during his patients' mastectomies, despite acknowledging that "every mastectomy is incomplete." This revelation comes after Paterson was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2017 for performing unnecessary and botched surgeries.

Now, a coroner has launched 62 inquests into the deaths of some of Paterson’s former patients, many of whom reportedly underwent what he called "cleavage-sparing mastectomies"—a technique that involves retaining some breast tissue yet breaches national medical guidelines.

A Troubling Past of Botched Surgeries

During an inquest into the tragic case of 43-year-old Chloe Nikitas, who passed away after her battle with cancer, Paterson claimed that leaving some breast tissue was an unavoidable aspect of surgery—not a deliberate choice. He stated, "Every surgeon leaves behind breast tissue; they don't do it intentionally, but it happens." But critics argue this may not just be a surgical oversight.

Previously, the court heard that Paterson’s controversial techniques often ignored established medical protocols, particularly for keeping patients' cleavages intact.

Denial and Deflection

At Chloe's inquest, Paterson tried to distinguish between different types of breast tissue, arguing that while he would sometimes leave behind non-glandular fatty tissue, this would not necessarily increase cancer risks. However, he admitted that failing to remove any significant tissue could pose an obvious threat of recurrence—a failure he claimed would only be an error if intentional.

When further questioned by Jonathan Jones KC, counsel for the inquest, Paterson was evasive, saying his views on the complications of leaving breast tissue behind could not be reduced to a simple yes or no.

The Case of Chloe Nikitas

In an alarming account, Nikitas returned to Paterson in 2005 expressing concerns about a lump but was reportedly not given the necessary examinations. Soon after, a biopsy confirmed she had returned to face Grade 2 ductal cancer. Paterson stated that earlier detection "would have made very little difference" to her survival chances, claiming the cancer was already "out of control." Yet, many question if that’s truly the case.

At the inquest, Paterson received several theories regarding the return of her cancer. He disagreed with most, believing that her original invasive cancer had likely spread before the initial mastectomy and reconstruction—a horrifying indictment of his own surgical practices.

A Family Left Behind

Despite the prognosis from 2002 indicating an 88% survival chance over 15 years, Chloe Nikitas tragically only survived six more years, leaving behind her devastated partner, Klaus Ströhle, and their son. The inquest continues to unfold, revealing more about the far-reaching implications of Paterson’s practices on numerous lives.

As the inquest progresses, questions linger about the adequacy of oversight in surgical practices and the safety of patients who trust their lives to medical professionals.