Predictors of Medical Malpractice Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis From 2010 to 2019.
Retrospective review of spine surgery malpractice cases.
The aim was to compare medical malpractice outcomes among different types of spine surgery and identify predictors of litigation outcomes.
Spine surgery is highly litigious in the United States with data suggesting favorable outcomes for defendant surgeons. However, factor specific data and explanations for plaintiff verdicts are lacking.
Westlaw legal database was queried for spine surgery malpractice outcomes from 2010 to 2019. Clinical data, reasons for litigation, and legal outcomes were tabulated. Statistical analysis was performed to identify factors associated with litigation outcomes.
A total of 257 cases were identified for inclusion. There were 98 noninstrumented and 148 instrumented cases; 110 single-level and 99 multilevel; 83 decompressions, 95 decompression and fusions, and 47 fusion only. In all, 182 (71%) resulted in a defendant verdict, 44 (17%) plaintiff verdict, and 31 (12%) settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in payouts of $2.03 million, while settlements resulted in $1.11 million (P=0.34). Common reasons for litigation were intraoperative error, hardware complication, and improper postoperative management. Cases were more likely to result for the plaintiff if postoperative cauda equina syndrome (55% vs. 26%, P<0.01), a surgical site infection (46% vs. 27%, P=0.03), or other catastrophic injury (40% vs. 26%, P=0.03) occurred. Higher monetary awards were associated with multi versus single-level (median: $2.61 vs. $0.92 million, P=0.01), improper postoperative management cited (median: $2.29 vs. $1.12 million, P=0.04), and permanent neurological deficits ($2.29 vs. $0.78 million, P<0.01). Plaintiff payouts were more likely if defendant specialty was neurosurgery versus orthopedic surgery (33% vs. 18%, P=0.01).
Spine surgery is a litigious field with multiple factors associated with outcomes. Efforts to reduce intraoperative errors and complications may improve patient care and decrease the risk of litigation.
Park HY
，Hwang R
，Sheppard WL
，Blumstein G
，Shah AA
，Medina JA
，Cargle MN
，Bugarin A
，Hamad CD
，Proal JD
，Smith R
，Bernthal NM
，Shamie AN
，Park DY
... -
《-》
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 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 cases in which the outcome was favorable to defendant versus plaintiff. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cases were 2.75 times more likely to be cited for excessive or inappropriate surgery (OR: 2.75 [95% CI: 1.14, 6.86], p=0.02) when compared to posterior surgical approaches.
The results of our analysis of reported claims suggest that medical malpractice litigation involving elective LSF is associated with jury verdicts over $1 million per case, with the most common alleged malpractice being intraoperative error and failure to obtain informed consent. Surgeon specialty, fellowship training, procedure type, and institution type were not associated with greater litigation risks; however, ALIF surgery had a significantly higher risk of involving claims of excessive or inappropriate surgery compared to posterior approaches for lumbar fusion. In addition, claims were significantly higher in the Northeast compared to other U.S. regions. Efforts to improve patient education through shared-decision making and proactive strategies to avoid, detect, and mitigate intra-operative procedural errors may decrease the risk of litigation in elective LSF.
Zhang JK
，Del Valle AJ
，Alexopoulos G
，Patel N
，Van Nispen J
，Patel M
，Xu E
，Mercier P
，Kohn NA
，Mattei TA
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
