Grégoire Rougereau1,2, Théo Kavakelis3, Frédéric Sailhan4,5, Nicolas Chanzy6, Frédéric Zadegan3, Tristan Langlais7, Didier Ollat3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. greg.rougereau@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. greg.rougereau@gmail.com. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. 4. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, Descartes University, 27 rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014, Paris, France. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Clinique Arago, 187 Rue Raymond Losserand, 75014, Paris, France. 6. M.A.C.S.F Mutuelle d'Assurances du Corps de Santé Français, CR Triangle de l'arche, 10 Rue de Valmy, 92800, Puteaux, France. 7. Department of Orthopedics Pediatrics, Children Hospital Purpan, Toulouse University, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine the reasons for complaints and describe the judicial means upstream of France's courts following arthroscopy. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study including all compensation records related to arthroscopic surgery, collected from the two leading French insurance organizations: MACSF and Branchet companies, from 2014 to 2018. Three medical experts performed the protocol and analysis. RESULTS: Finally, 247 procedures were included. The most common motives were: the appearance or persistence of pain (43.7%), postoperative infection (29.1%), technical errors (10.5%), nerve damage (5.7%), arterial lesions (2.8%), side errors (2.4%). Knee arthroscopies were more at risk of legal action for infection (p = 0.0006), and for disappointing results or persistent pain (p = 0.001). The first recourse was the conciliation and compensation commission (CCI) in 136 cases (55.1%), the civil court (TGI) in 88 cases (35.6%) and amicable settlement in 23 cases (9.3%). The mean time between surgery and the complaint was 32.8 ± 25.7 months, and was shorter in the case of an amicable procedure (p < 0.001). The lawsuit's mean duration was 15.6 ± 11.2 months, but longer in case of civil proceedings (p < 0.0001). The experts found no negligence in 81.8% of cases (n = 202). Infections were the leading cause of recourse to the conciliation and compensation commission (p < 0.0001), while technical errors were the main reason for complaints settled in an amicable procedure (p = 0.035). It was found more proven negligence in case of amicable procedures (p < 0.0001). The mean amount of compensation was 60,968.45€. No significant difference could be found regarding the median values of compensation between the reason of complaint. The amount of compensation was higher in civil court proceedings than in any others (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The main reasons for arthroscopy litigation in France are reported in this study, specifying how they are managed upstream of possible legal proceedings. The knee is the main joint involved. Patient information, close follow-up associated with early and appropriate management of complications are the main ways to reduce complaints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine the reasons for complaints and describe the judicial means upstream of France's courts following arthroscopy. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study including all compensation records related to arthroscopic surgery, collected from the two leading French insurance organizations: MACSF and Branchet companies, from 2014 to 2018. Three medical experts performed the protocol and analysis. RESULTS: Finally, 247 procedures were included. The most common motives were: the appearance or persistence of pain (43.7%), postoperative infection (29.1%), technical errors (10.5%), nerve damage (5.7%), arterial lesions (2.8%), side errors (2.4%). Knee arthroscopies were more at risk of legal action for infection (p = 0.0006), and for disappointing results or persistent pain (p = 0.001). The first recourse was the conciliation and compensation commission (CCI) in 136 cases (55.1%), the civil court (TGI) in 88 cases (35.6%) and amicable settlement in 23 cases (9.3%). The mean time between surgery and the complaint was 32.8 ± 25.7 months, and was shorter in the case of an amicable procedure (p < 0.001). The lawsuit's mean duration was 15.6 ± 11.2 months, but longer in case of civil proceedings (p < 0.0001). The experts found no negligence in 81.8% of cases (n = 202). Infections were the leading cause of recourse to the conciliation and compensation commission (p < 0.0001), while technical errors were the main reason for complaints settled in an amicable procedure (p = 0.035). It was found more proven negligence in case of amicable procedures (p < 0.0001). The mean amount of compensation was 60,968.45€. No significant difference could be found regarding the median values of compensation between the reason of complaint. The amount of compensation was higher in civil court proceedings than in any others (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The main reasons for arthroscopy litigation in France are reported in this study, specifying how they are managed upstream of possible legal proceedings. The knee is the main joint involved. Patient information, close follow-up associated with early and appropriate management of complications are the main ways to reduce complaints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.