Malpractice litigation in elective lumbar spinal fusion: a comprehensive review of reported legal claims in the U.S. in the past 50 years

In the U.S., medical malpractice litigation is associated with significant financial costs and often leads to the practice of defensive medicine. Among medical subspecialities, spine surgery is disproportionately impacted by malpractice claims. To provide a comprehensive assessment of reported malpr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The spine journal 2022-08, Vol.22 (8), p.1254-1264
Hauptverfasser: Zhang, Justin K., del Valle, Armando J., Alexopoulos, Georgios, Patel, Niel, Van Nispen, Johan, Patel, Mayur, Xu, Evan, Mercier, Philippe, Kohn, Nina A., Mattei, Tobias A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In the U.S., medical malpractice litigation is associated with significant financial costs and often leads to the practice of defensive medicine. Among medical subspecialities, spine surgery is disproportionately impacted by malpractice claims. To provide a comprehensive assessment of reported malpractice litigation claims involving elective lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) surgery during the modern era of spine surgery instrumentation in the U.S., to identify factors associated with verdict outcomes, and to compare malpractice claims characteristics between different approaches for LSF. A retrospective review. Patients undergoing elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The primary outcome measure was verdict outcome (defendant vs. plaintiff verdict). Secondary outcome measures included alleged malpractice, injury/damage claimed, and award payouts. The Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA) was queried for verdict and settlement reports pertaining to elective LSF cases from 1970 to 2021. Data were collected regarding patient demographics, surgeon specialty, fellowship training, state/region, procedure, institutional setting (academic vs. community hospital), alleged malpractice, injury sustained, case outcomes, and monetary award. A total of 310 cases were identified, yielding 67% (n=181) defendant and 24% (n=65) plaintiff verdicts, with 9% (n=26) settlements. Neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons were equally named as the defendant (45% vs. 51% respectively, p=0.59). When adjusted for inflation, the median final award for plaintiff verdicts was $1,241,286 (95% CI: $884,850–$2,311,706) while the median settlement award was $925,000 (95% CI: $574,800–$1,787,130), with no stastistically significant differences between verdict and reported settlement payouts (p=0.49). The Northeast region displayed significantly higher award payouts compared to other U.S. regions (p=0.02). There were no associations in awards outcomes when comparing alleged malpractice, alleged injuries/damages, institutional setting, surgical procedures, and surgeon specialty or fellowship training. The most common claims were intraoperative error (28%, n=107) followed by failure to obtain informed consent (24%, n=94). In the analyzed cohort, the most common injuries leading to litigation were refractory pain and suffering (37%, n=149) followed by permanent neurological deficits (26%, n=106). There were no differences in alleged malpractice or injury sustained between cas
ISSN:1529-9430
1878-1632
DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2022.03.015