It is entirely different from what you were told

Procedures in book are only admissible evidence but not conclusive. Medical board is not helpful either. First you need to let us know what exactly happened. In a typical malpractice case you will need expert's testimony to prove what the doctor did wrong. The doctor will have his expert to testify as well. It is essentially a battle of experts to see who is better prepared to convince the jury. These experts have to be in the same practice field. For example, if you were wronged in an open heart surgury, you can not get an ear-nose-throat doctor to testify, even though he might be really knowledgable, since he does not practice in the same area. The standard of care for doctors is the minimum. The doctor does not have to follow any common practice, for as long as his procedure is reputable and acceptable then he did not breach the duty, hence, not negligent.
Books are not helpful since courts will consider the locality of the practice. For example, in rural areas some equipments may not be readily available, you can not hold the doctor there to the same standard of doctors in a big city. Modern trend is to use state standard or even national standard for certain physicians, but the locality issue is still there. Opinions from China may be irrelevant.
Walski v. Tiesenga is my favorite case. There the defendant doctor removed thyroid from the victim. The common procedure is to protect the surrounding nurves first but the defendant did not do that, which resulted in permanent loss of voice. There was an expert doctor who witnessed the operation and later testified that he would not do it the same way. Illinois Supreme Court ruled for the defendant and denied the plaintiff's recovery since the defendant doctor was able to prove that he had been doing the same procedure all the time and he was not negligent.