When a construction worker from Henan had X-rays taken three years after a thumb reattachment operation, the tiny ring-like anastomosis devices itemised on his hospitalization bill were nowhere to be seen. The product — a disposable, ring-shaped microvascular anastomosis device with stainless-steel pins, sold in China at about ¥16,800 each — is designed to remain in the body and shows up clearly on radiographs. Its absence prompted a police inquiry that would expose a years-long scheme in which an eminent emergency surgeon at Zhengzhou University’s First Affiliated Hospital billed dozens of patients for devices he either did not use or deliberately hid in tissue to avoid detection.
The surgeon, identified by the Chinese courts as Wang Fujian, was found to have used 343 such devices between 2016 and 2020 and received roughly ¥1.05m in kickbacks from a medical‑device supplier that agreed to pay 20% of the device price. The court determined that 94 patients with finger injuries — including infants and young children whose vessels are too small for the device — were charged for 128 devices totaling about ¥2.05m. Some of those fees were judged to be obtained by fraud; court records and witness statements say devices unopened in the operating theatre were later found in hospital rubbish bins, or sutured into soft tissue beside blood vessels to make radiographs appear credible.
Victims ranged from blue‑collar workers to children; many discovered the deception only when post‑operative X‑rays showed no implant. The supplier told investigators that the product is intended for larger vessels (arm, thigh, palm) and is unsuitable for finger arteries — a fact corroborated in testimony from the hospital’s own staff and the product’s agent. Colleagues and assistants told police that Wang was a highly skilled microsurgeon who could perform hand and replantation operations by hand more quickly and effectively than by using the device, calling into question the clinical justification for its routine use in these cases.
The scheme combined three common vulnerabilities: generous billing lines for disposable devices, opaque hospital incentive and procurement systems, and cozy relationships between clinicians and sales representatives. Hospital practice of awarding operation bonuses and procedural subsidies to lead surgeons appears to have created a financial motive: stitching an unnecessary device into a patient’s bill delivered both a larger hospital fee and an outside rebate. Despite patient complaints as early as 2018 and an internal transfer, Wang continued to perform surgeries and, the court found, to bill for unused devices until his retirement and later criminal detention.
Legal consequences were severe. In December 2025 the Zhengzhou intermediate court convicted Wang of fraud and accepting bribes as a non‑state actor, imposing a combined sentence of 12 years and a ¥400,000 fine. The court ordered recovery of ¥1,554,880 in illegal gains and restitution to the affected patients; the supplier’s principal and intermediaries were also sentenced for bribery. The case was preceded by investigative reporting beginning in late 2021 and illustrates a rare criminal prosecution for device‑related fraud in China’s healthcare system.
Beyond the courtroom, the affair has wider implications for patient trust, device regulation and market conduct. For patients it is a stark reminder of the asymmetry of information in surgery: consent and billing rely on clinicians’ honesty and on hospitals’ oversight. For foreign and domestic device makers, the case underscores reputational and compliance risks when agents or distributors pursue volume-driven incentives. For regulators and hospital administrators it highlights the need for clearer procurement transparency, tighter controls on operating‑theatre inventory, mandatory imaging audits and clearer alignment of physician incentives with patient outcomes.
If China wishes to curb this form of medical corruption it will need reforms that reach beyond punishment. Better auditing of disposable implant usage, public disclosure of device inventory and surgical billing, and protection for whistleblowers and complainants could deter collusion. The case also points to a demand‑side response: patients and insurers could insist on post‑operative imaging as standard for implanted devices and on itemised, verifiable supply chains for expensive consumables. Without systemic fixes, high‑value disposable devices will remain an exploitable axis for profits that harm patients and erode confidence in public hospitals.