Literature DB >> 20087227

A review of medicolegal malpractice suits involving cervical spine: what can we learn or change?

Nancy E Epstein1.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Utilizing Verdict Search (East Islip, New York), a medicolegal research service for civil and criminal court cases, 78 cervical spine surgical malpractice suits were identified (10-year period).
OBJECTIVE: Factors leading to cervical spine surgical litigation may represent an untapped source of risks/complications associated with these operations. SUMMARY OF
BACKGROUND: Data with fewer adverse events are submitted to and/or published in spine journals, as they are discoverable in a court of law.
METHODS: Cervical spine surgery in 68 patients included 48 anterior operations (1 to 4 level anterior diskectomy/fusions, 1-level corpectomy/fusion). Twenty patients had posterior surgery (7 fusions, 13 laminectomies with/without fusions). Two patients had other operations/procedures, whereas 8 had no surgery. Four major questions were asked; (1) What were the operations/neurologic deficits that led to the suits?, (2) Who was sued?, (3) What purported and/or alleged "malpractice" events prompted the suits?, and (4) What were the outcomes of these suits?
RESULTS: Postoperative neurologic deficits that led to suits included quadriplegia in 41 patients (21 anterior, 20 posterior operations). Other injuries/lesser postoperative deficits were observed in 15 patients, whereas 22 had pain alone. Malpractice suits involved 63 spine surgeons, whereas 15 did not. The 3 most common malpractice events prompting cervical suits, and typical for most surgery-related suits, included negligent surgery, lack of informed consent, and failure to diagnose/treat; the fourth unanticipated factor was failure to brace. Outcomes for these suits included 30 defense verdicts (10 quadriplegic patients), 22 plaintiffs' verdicts (average payout $4.0 million dollars), and 26 settlements (average $2.4 million dollars).
CONCLUSIONS: Data gleaned from medicolegal suits may provide additional information regarding the morbidity associated with cervical surgery. These data may lessen patients' expectations, and limit spine surgeons' liability. In the future, consideration may be given to tort reform, or a No-Fault malpractice system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20087227     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181c752ab

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  9 in total

1.  Allegations of Failure to Obtain Informed Consent in Spinal Surgery Medical Malpractice Claims.

Authors:  Jennifer Grauberger; Panagiotis Kerezoudis; Asad J Choudhry; Mohammed Ali Alvi; Ahmad Nassr; Bradford Currier; Mohamad Bydon
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  A nine-year review of medicolegal claims in neurosurgery.

Authors:  S Mukherjee; C Pringle; M Crocker
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  In vitro study of accuracy of cervical pedicle screw insertion using an electronic conductivity device (ATPS part III).

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Wolfgang Hitzl; Frank Acosta; Mark Tauber; Juliane Zenner; Herbert Resch; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Oliver Meier; Rene Schmidt; Michael Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  What Can Spine Surgeons Do to Improve Patient Care and Avoid Medical Negligence Suits?

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2020-03-06

5.  Medical Malpractice Claims and Mitigation Strategies Following Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Keith L Jackson; Jacob Rumley; Matthew Griffith; Timothy R Linkous; Uzondu Agochukwu; John DeVine
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-08-07

6.  The need to add motor evoked potential monitoring to somatosensory and electromyographic monitoring in cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-10-29

7.  Physician and patients factors associated with outcome of spinal epidural abscess related malpractice litigation.

Authors:  Govind Shantharam; J Mason DePasse; Adam E M Eltorai; Wesley M Durand; Mark A Palumbo; Alan H Daniels
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2018-09-26

8.  Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for breach detection during pedicle screw placement: a first in vivo investigation in a porcine model.

Authors:  Akash Swamy; Jarich W Spliethoff; Gustav Burström; Drazenko Babic; Christian Reich; Joanneke Groen; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi-Terander; John M Racadio; Jenny Dankelman; Benno H W Hendriks
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 2.819

9.  Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy, a potential optical sensing technology for the detection of cortical breaches during spinal screw placement.

Authors:  Akash Swamy; Gustav Burström; Jarich W Spliethoff; Drazenko Babic; Christian Reich; Joanneke Groen; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi Terander; John M Racadio; Jenny Dankelman; Benno H W Hendriks
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 3.170

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.