We present a review of litigation claims relating to foot and ankle surgery in the NHS in England during the 17-year period between 1995 and 2012.

A freedom of information request was made to obtain data from the NHS litigation authority (NHSLA) relating to orthopaedic claims, and the foot and ankle claims were reviewed.

During this period of time, a total of 10 273 orthopaedic claims were made, of which 1294 (12.6%) were related to the foot and ankle. 1036 were closed, which comprised of 1104 specific complaints. Analysis was performed using the complaints as the denominator. The cost of settling these claims was more than £36 million.

There were 372 complaints (33.7%) involving the ankle, of which 273 (73.4%) were related to trauma. Conditions affecting the first ray accounted for 236 (21.4%), of which 232 (98.3%) concerned elective practice. Overall, claims due to diagnostic errors accounted for 210 (19.0%) complaints, 208 (18.8%) from alleged incompetent surgery and 149 (13.5%) from alleged mismanagement.

Our findings show that the incorrect, delayed or missed diagnosis of conditions affecting the foot and ankle is a key area for improvement, especially in trauma practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1510–14.

The number of clinical negligence claims in the UK is constantly increasing. As a specialty, trauma and orthopaedic surgery has one of the highest numbers of negligence claims. 1. This study analyses NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) claims in trauma and orthopaedics between 2004 and 2014. . A formal request was made to the NHSLA under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain all data related to claims against orthopaedic surgery. It was found that the number of claims, and percentage of successful claims, has been constantly increasing over this period, with compensation paid of over £349 million.* Errors in clinical management accounted for the highest number of closed claims (2933 claims), costing over £119 million.*. The level of compensation paid out has a significant financial impact on the NHS. Reforms need to be made in order to tackle the high cost of legal fees generated by these claims, which further drain the limited resources available to the NHS

Payments by the NHS Litigation Authority continue to rise each year, and reflect an increase in successful claims for negligence against NHS Trusts. Information about the reasons for which Trusts are sued in the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery is scarce. We analysed 130 consecutive cases of alleged clinical negligence in which the senior author had been requested to act as an expert witness between 2004 and 2006, and received information on the outcome of 97 concluded cases from the relevant solicitors. None of the 97 cases proceeded to a court hearing. Overall, 55% of cases were abandoned by the claimants’ solicitors, and the remaining 45% were settled out of court. The cases were settled for sums ranging from £4500 to £2.7 million, the median settlement being £45 000. The cases that were settled out of court were usually the result of delay in treatment or diagnosis, or because of substandard surgical technique

Background. In the UK 70,000 knee arthroplasties are performed each year. Although outcomes from knee arthroplasties are usually excellent, they can nevertheless lead to negligence claims. The aim of this study was to establish the incidence, cost and cause of negligence claims arising from knee arthroplasties. Method. All claims made to the NHS Litigation Authority between 2003 and 2008, where the operation was knee arthroplasty, were included in this study. Data obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority were reviewed, coded and analysed. For negligence to have occurred, patients must have suffered harm as a result of substandard care. Hence the cause of negligence claims was analysed in terms of: (1) Substandard care and (2) Harm caused. Results. There were 326 claims over the five-year period, resulting in an incidence of 65 claims per year. Of the 326 claims, 246 have been closed with 80 remaining open. 40% of closed claims resulted in the payment of damages. The total cost of negligence claims over the period was £6.6 million. Substandard care commonly encountered in negligence claims was: surgical quality (56%), post-op care (23%), and infection control (8%). Harms commonly encountered in negligence claims were: additional/unnecessary operation (30%), pain (23%) and amputation (8%). Conclusion. There is a significant litigation burden associated with knee arthroplasties. The unexpected prominence of additional/unnecessary operation, pain and amputation in negligence claims emphasise the need for patients to be warned about these risks

Claims for clinical negligence are increasing annually. Limb reconstructive surgery recognises ‘problems, obstacles, and complications’ as part of the treatment process, but this does not prevent a claim for an alleged poor result or a complication. We analysed claims for clinical negligence in the National Health Service in England and Wales for issues following limb reconstructive surgery. A database of all 10,456 claims related to Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery from 1995–2010 was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority. A Search Function for keywords “Ilizarov, limb reconstruction, external fixation, and pin-site” was used for subset analysis. Data was analysed for type of complaint, whether defended or not, and for costs. 52 claims fitted our filters - 48 were closed, and 4 ongoing. The claims included damage to local structures (n=3), missed compartment syndrome (n=2), premature frame removal (n=5), infection (n=13), wrong-site-surgery (n=1), poor outcome (n=16) and technical error (n=10). Seven patients underwent amputation. The total cost of litigation was £4,444,344, with a mean of £90,700 per settled claim. 40% were successfully defended, with defence cost of £15,322. The mean pay-out for confirmed negligence/liability was £90,056 (£1,500-£419,999, median £45,000) per case. We believe this is the first study looking at complications following limb reconstruction from this perspective. Analysis reveals a spectrum of claims for negligence. Perceived technical errors and poor outcome predominate. Whilst the limitations of the database preclude against identification of whether the procedures were carried out in specialist units, claims for technical errors are a cause for concern. These will be discussed in detail. Outcomes following limb reconstruction are difficult to quantify, and the settling of claims for a perceived poor outcome makes the case for pre-operative counselling and the need for robust outcome measures in our specialty

Definitions and perceptions of good and poor outcome vary between patients and surgeons, and perceived inadequate outcome can lead to litigation. We investigated outcomes of litigation claims relating to non-union and deformity following lower limb long bone fractures from 1995 to 2010. The database of all 10456 claims related to Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority. Data was searched for “deformity, non-union and mal-union”, excluding spine, arthroplasty, foot and upper limb surgery. The type of complaint, whether defended or not, and costs was analysed. 241 claims met our criteria, 204 of which were closed, and 37 unsettled. Deformity/mal-union constituted 97, and non-union 143. Coronal/sagittal deformity cost £4.2 million, mean £45,487 (60% received compensation). Rotational mal-unions cost £1.6 million, mean £114,263 (87% received compensation). Non-union cost £5.3 million, mean £75,866 (60% received compensation). Mean legal fees for coronal/sagittal deformity was £18,772, rotational deformity £37,384, and non-union £24,680. The total cost of litigation was £12.2 million, with a mean of £59,597 per settled claim. The mean pay-out for all confirmed negligence/liability was £56,046 (£1,300–£500,000, median £21,500) per case. Non-union is an accepted complication following fracture surgery. However, this does not mitigate against non-union being seen as representing a poor standard of care. While it is unclear whether the payouts reflect a defensive culture or were due to avoidable errors, and notwithstanding the limitations of the database, we argue that failure of the index surgery should prompt a referral to a specialist centre. The cosmetic appearances of rotational malalignment results in higher compensation, reinforcing outward perception of outcome as being more important than harmful effects. We also note that the database sometimes contained conflicting and incomplete data, and make a case for standardisation of this component of the outcome process to allow for learning and reflection

The cost of clinical negligence in the UK has continued to rise despite no increase in claims numbers from 2016 to 2019. In the US, medical malpractice claim rates have fallen each year since 2001 and the payout rate has stabilized. In Germany, malpractice claim rates for spinal surgery fell yearly from 2012 to 2017, despite the number of spinal operations increasing. In Australia, public healthcare claim rates were largely static from 2008 to 2013, but private claims rose marginally. The cost of claims rose during the period. UK and Australian trends are therefore out of alignment with other international comparisons. Many of the claims in orthopaedics occur as a result of “failure to warn”, i.e. lack of adequately documented and appropriate consent. The UK and USA have similar rates (26% and 24% respectively), but in Germany the rate is 14% and in Australia only 2%. This paper considers the drivers for the increased cost of clinical negligence claims in the UK compared to the USA, Germany and Australia, from a spinal and orthopaedic point of view, with a focus on “failure to warn” and lack of compliance with the principles established in February 2015 in the Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. The article provides a description of the prevailing medicolegal situation in the UK and also calculates, from publicly available data, the cost to the public purse of the failure to comply with the principles established. It shows that compliance with the Montgomery principles would have an immediate and lasting positive impact on the sums paid by NHS Resolution to settle negligence cases in a way that has already been established in the USA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):550–555

Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

The aim of this study was to review the data held with the NHSLA database over the last 10 years for negligence in spine surgery with particular focus on why patients ‘claim’ and what is the likely outcome. Anonymous retrospective review. We contacted the NHSLA and asked them to provide all data held on their database under the search terms ‘spine surgery or spine surgeon.’. An excel sheet was provided, and this was then studied for reason of ‘claim’, whether the claim was open/closed and outcome. A total of 67 claims of negligence were made against spinal surgeries during this time (2000-09). The number of claims had increased over the last few years: 2000-03, n= 8, 2004-06, n= 46. The lumbar spine remains the most common area (Lumbar: 55/67, Thoracic : 6/67, Cervical 6/67). Documented reasons for claims were post-operative complications (n= 28; 42%), delayed/failure to diagnose (n=24; 36%), discontent with preoperative assessment including consent (n=2; 3%), intra-operative complications (n= 10; 15%) and anaesthesia complication (n=3; 4%). Twenty were closed and 47 remained open. The number of successful claims was 8/20 (40%). The mean compensation paid out was £33,409 (range was £820.5 to £60,693). The number of claims brought against spinal surgeries is on the increase, with the most common area being the lumbar spine which perhaps is not surprising as this is the most common area of spinal surgery. Common reasons are post-operative complications and delay/failure to diagnose. The ‘success’ of these claims over the last 10 years was 8/20 (40%) with mean compensation paid out was £33,409. Ethics approval: None;. Interest Statement: The lead author is the CEO and founder of a Personal Injury/Medico-Legal company

Our aim was to determine from the general community an understanding of the implications of informed consent, expectations in regard to self-autonomy, appreciation of risk in surgery, the implications of surgical complications, the degree of acceptability of risk for a given complication and views on surgeon liability. One thousand questionnaires were distributed to members of the general public attending the Palmerston North Hospital as outpatients or visitors (inpatients were excluded). Less than 20% of respondents appreciated the concepts of battery, negligence, self-autonomy and confidentiality. 59% wanted to know about potential complications in order to assist them in making a decision on whether or not to proceed with surgery. Given options and a discussion of the risks, 64% wished to take responsibility for which surgical procedure they would undergo. 9% were unaware that surgical procedures had risks of serious complications. 10% would not undertake surgery if the risk of a serious complication was one in a million, while 30% would undertake surgery regardless of the risk involved. 21% felt the surgeon would be liable in the event of an unmentioned rare complication. The grasp of the perceived objective of informed consent is poor amongst the general population. The tolerance for medical negligence is low and expectations in regard to self-autonomy seem unrealistically high. We feel it is necessary to revisit ‘informed consent’ and for the public (and the legal profession) to make ‘informed consent’ a practical goal-orientated patient/doctor friendly process rather than the existing ‘legal obstacle’ that it is

The aim is: to point out, in respect of Italian case law trends, the concept and the boundaries of surgeon malpractice liability in evaluating and implanting new prosthesic materials. The surgeon is liable for damages caused by fraudulent intention or fault during his clinical and operating activity. In a civil perspective, it could be the result of either a breach of a contract or a tort, depending on the existing relationship between the surgeon and the patient; but in both case there might be a serious inexperience or a light imprudence or negligence to admit a fair compensation for damages. While in a criminal perspective, the personal injuries might be the result of a serious fault also in the area of imprudence and negligence to admit the application of criminal sanctions. Of course, personal liability of surgeon stands by vicarious liability of health unit. Civil sanctions are more effective than criminal sanctions, not only because they have a wider area of application, but also because they are more incisive in quantitative terms, considering the new guidelines on pecuniary and biological damages that make out, at the same time, a compensatory and punitive function. The surgeon, to be sure not to be affected by civil and criminal actions, might inform the patient about the operating features and the consequences of non operating, follow standardized protocols, use products and materials tested and certified by the most influential scientific literature, be care of post-operating effects and adopt all remedies and treatments that can eliminate or reduce post-operating risks, use the best and up-to-date techniques available. In any case he is not liable for unforeseeable events, even if they are in a causative relationship with surgical activity

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is a prolonged episode of shoulder dysfunction that commences within 24 to 48 hours of a vaccination. Symptoms include a combination of shoulder pain, stiffness, and weakness. There has been a recent rapid increase in reported cases of SIRVA within the literature, particularly in adults, and is likely related to the mass vaccination programmes associated with COVID-19 and influenza. The pathophysiology is not certain, but placement of the vaccination in the subdeltoid bursa or other pericapsular tissue has been suggested to result in an inflammatory capsular process. It has been hypothesized that this is associated with a vaccine injection site that is “too high” and predisposes to the development of SIRVA. Nerve conduction studies are routinely normal, but further imaging can reveal deep-deltoid collections, rotator cuff tendinopathy and tears, or subacromial subdeltoid bursitis. However, all of these are common findings within a general asymptomatic population. Medicolegal claims in the UK, based on an incorrect injection site, are unlikely to meet the legal threshold to determine liability.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):839–842.

We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable. In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74% of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit. Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably, avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries, failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced a deterioration in their neurological status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:527–31

Two discrete legal factors enable the surgeon to treat an injured patient the fully informed, autonomous consent of the adult patient with capacity via civil law; and the medical exception to the criminal law. This article discusses current concepts in consent in trauma; and also considers the perhaps less well known medical exception to the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which exempts surgeons from criminal liability as long as they provide ‘proper medical treatment’.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):565–569.

To establish the incidence of litigation in Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) and the causes of litigation. Review of 10 years of abbreviated records of the National Health Service litigation authority (NHSLA) (1997-2007) and eight years of medical negligence cases (MNC) reported on by the two senior authors (2000-2008). Patients who experienced CES and litigated. There were 117 patients in the NHSLA records and 23 patients in the MNC group. Review of timing of onset, delay in diagnosis, responsible specialist, place, and resulting symptoms. NHSLA cases. 62/117 cases were closed. The responsible specialists were as follows. Orthopaedic. 60. Accident and Emergency. 32. Other. 25. The commonest failure was delay in diagnosis, and the commonest complications were “neurological”, bladder and bowel. MNC cases. F:M;17/6. L4/5 13 cases, L5/S1 9 cases. The responsible specialist was orthopaedic (7), other (7) and in 8 cases the opinion was that there was no case to answer. Delay to treatment averaged 6.14 days. 18/23 patients described bowel and bladder symptoms, the information was not available in the remainder. Litigation is major problem in CES. In most cases orthopaedic surgeons are litigated against, and bowel and bladder symptoms remain the most disturbing cause of litigation. These surgeons are mostly not spinal specialists. In most successful cases of litigation there is considerable delay in diagnosis and management. Where there is incomplete Cauda Equina Syndrome urgent or emergency investigation and treatment is mandatory

Fracture is the only clinically relevant aspect of osteoporosis—a major public health problem in many countries. The strongest predictor for a new fragility fracture is a previous one. For instance, a patient with one osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture has about a seven-fold increased hip fracture risk; a patient with two compression fractures a 14-fold hip fracture risk. Today, we have evidence based and efficient osteoporosis drugs as well as non-pharmacologic methods for fracture prophylaxis. In risk group patients it often is possible to halve the fracture risk. The orthopaedic surgeon is the first and sometimes the only doctor a fracture patien sees. Therefore, as orthopaedic surgeons, we have a great opportunity—and indeed an onus—to identify patients with increased fracture risk, and to do something about it. Imagine patients with myocardial infarction or stroke discharged from hospital without blood pressure control or having a biochemical profile taken? Such negligence is, alas, not uncommon for patients with fragility fractures. We must think in terms of absolute fracture risk, and implement today’s evidence based knowledge. Secondary prophylaxis should be an integrated part in fracture treatment. And this calls for a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional teamwork including surgeons, geriatricians, endocrinologists and general practitioners, as well as nurses, physiotherapists and a wide range of other paramedical specialists. Such “fracture chains” will reduce the number of unnecessary and preventable injuries and will have a great impact in terms of cost and suffering. This symposium will give an overveiw of fracture-preventing strategies

Aims

The primary aim of this study is to assess the survival of the uncemented hydroxyapatite (HA) coated Trident II acetabular component as part of a hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a cemented Exeter stem. The secondary aims are to assess the complications, joint-specific function, health-related quality of life, and radiological signs of loosening of the acetabular component.

We review all litigation brought against English Orthopaedic departments involving children under the age of 16 and attempt to highlight areas where they might be avoided. The NHSLA (the National Health Service Litigation Authority) is a special Health Authority responsible for handling negligence claims made against NHS bodies in England. In addition to dealing with claims when they arise, there is an active risk management programme to help raise standards of care in the NHS and hence reduce the number of incidents leading to claims. By analysing the claims data, we have had the opportunity to see trends for which Trusts have litigation brought against them, how much this costs the Health Service and most importantly how this information can aid in clinical practice. Between 1995 until 2005/06 there were 408 cases involving orthopaedics in England that had reached a conclusion. Of those considered in our study (341), by far the most common broad category for litigation is missed or delayed diagnosis of a condition 179 cases (57% of all litigation cases) with 44% (80 cases) of those being upper limb traumatic injuries. Humeral supracondylar fractures and elbow injuries constitute 24% (44 cases) of all missed diagnoses with each having an average total payout of £27,998. Missed or poorly managed developmental disorders of the hip (DDH or SUFE) also have large total payouts. Other common causes for litigation are intra-operative errors with poor results/complications for fixation of humeral supracondylar fractures again being the most common. Complications of plasters also represent 7.3% of all claims, all with high total payouts. In assessing these trends, we suggest highlighting the potential for error during training of juniors and taking extra care during clinical practice. There are also implications identified for the planned provision of Orthopaedic care of children

Background Prescriptive guidelines for selection of implants for hip arthroplasty are likely to become increasingly established, on grounds of safety, cost and effectiveness. Such guidelines were introduced in the UK by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2000. Most departments were non-compliant in one or more respects, and knowledge of the recommendations was limited among clinicians. Concern exists that the recommendations may replace the Bolam Test in cases of clinical negligence in future. Materials and Methods The recommendations of NICE, from the initial documentation to the present, were scrutinised alongside experience of other nationally-funded or managed healthcare systems in Europe and North America. The evolution of guidance from 1999 onwards, together with the areas of potential difficulty were identified. Results Potential difficulties were encountered in relation to a number of implants in widespread use in the UK, particularly in relation to the choice of acetabular component (cup), despite the fact that cup loosening accounts for a third of revisions. The use of cup and stem from different manufacturers was also identified as a cause of concern. Discussion Departments face a choice of adopting the recommendations of NICE in their entirety or continuing with established practice, with the attendant risk of future litigation should certain implants prove to be unacceptable as clinical results become available through the National Registry. Continuation with established practice may be acceptable, even in respect of implants not recommended by NICE, provided data collection activity is maintained. We propose an algorithm through which individual departments may maintain compliance with NICE without altering departmental practice

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.

During revision hip surgery, damage to the sciatic nerve is due most commonly to excessive tension. While the nerve is strong in tension and is able to tolerate this remarkably, it is sensitive to lateral compression against angled structures and it is likely that tension causes injury by such pressure. In a personal series of 441 revision hip procedures, sciatic nerve injury occurred in 9 recognised cases:. 2 were complete with no useful recovery. 2 were severe with some incomplete recovery. 3 were predominantly lateral popliteal with incomplete recovery. 2 were transient and clinically fully recovered. In only two of these were the cause and the time of injury identifiable. In these cases, pain was not a serious feature but in eight separate medico-legal cases, burning pain of variable distribution has been the most serious complaint. Medical negligence has been successfully sustained on the grounds of res ipsa locitur. Regrettably, patients must be given informed consent with yet another potential hazard being listed. We have found that in normal individuals the range of straight leg raising varies between 30 and 90 degrees. Towards the limit of this range the nerve is tight and a crude cadaveric test indicated a tension force of 40 newtons! In an athlete this may be extreme and yet the nerve does not complain. Excluding direct compression (e.g. by a retractor) and thermal injury, we suggest that the tension developed during unguarded straight leg raising while the patient is still anaesthetised is a serious risk factor. After even conservative lengthening, the tension rises alarmingly during such action. It is possible that pre-existing lumbar degenerative disk disease can contribute to the hazard and be source of pain

Routine metalwork removal, in asymptomatic patients, remains a controversial issue in our daily practice. Current literature emphasized the potential hazards of implant removal and the financial implications encountered from these procedures. However, there is little literature guidance and no published research on current practice. To estimate the current state of practice of orthopaedic surgeons in the United Kingdom regarding implant removal for limb trauma in asymptomatic patients, an analysis of the postal questionnaire replies of 36% (500 out of 1390) of randomly selected UK orthopaedic consultants was performed by two independent observers. 47.4% replies were received. A total of 205 (41%) were found to be suitable for analysis. The most significant results of our study I: 92% of orthopaedic surgeons stated that they do not routinely remove metalwork in asymptomatic skeletally mature patients. II: 60% of trauma surgeons stated that they do routinely remove metalwork in patients aged 16 years and under, while only 12% of trauma surgeons do routinely remove metalwork in the age group between 16–35 years. III: 87% of the practising surgeons indicated that they believe it is reasonable to leave metalwork in for 10 years or more. IV: Only 7% of practising trauma surgeons replied to this questionnaire have departmental or unit policy. No policy is needed for metalwork removal, as most of the orthopaedic surgeons were complying with literature guidance supporting the potential risks associated with implant removal, in spite of the limited number of departmental or units’ policies on implant removal and the paucity of the literature documenting the current practice. However, there is a discrepancy among trauma surgeons in relation to metalwork removal between patient age groups. This indicates guidelines would be helpful to guide the surgeon for the best practice. This is important from a medico-legal standpoint because surgeons are being criticised for not achieving satisfactory results in negligence cases

We have performed a study comparing the radiological results of Total hip replacements performed by a single, experienced specialist hip surgeon with those reported from the Trent Regional Arthroplasty Study (TRAS) [presented at BOA congress 2000]. Results from TRAS have revealed that inadequate cementation grades and a cement mantle width of < 2mm were the most significant associations predicting early aseptic loosening. Interestingly, their respective incidences were as large as 20% and 50% in a random sample of THRs from the TRAS register. Data is lacking as to whether poorer radiographic cementation grades have a trend towards individual surgeons or whether they are more evenly distributed amongst the surgical population including those adhering to modem techniques. Therefore, we have undertaken an independent review of A-P and lateral radiographs of 33 consecutive Charnley THRs performed by a specialist hip surgeon using carefully controlled modem cementing techniques and compared the results with the same random cohort of THRs from the TRAS. Our results show that the specialist surgeon achieved a significantly higher proportion (82%) of complete cement mantles (> 2mm in all zones) than those achieved by TRAS (50%) [Chi. 2. =7. 79, p=0. 0052]. This suggests that improved cement mantles can be achieved by the adoption of carefully controlled modem cementing techniques. However, use of the Barrack system of grading was unable to detect differences in cementation quality between specialist (88%) and TRAS group (81%) [Chi. 2. =0. 235; p=0. 631 suggesting less sensitivity in this technique for assessing cementation quality. These results are important for the following reasons. Achievement of adequate mantle (> 2mm) can be improved upon by adoption of carefully controlled modem cementing technique. However, regardless of the method of assessment of cementation quality, approximately 18% will appear ‘inadequate’ despite modern techniques suggesting that factors outside the surgeon’s control are involved in determining cementation grade. This has important medico-legal implication in the current climate in which surgeons are being criticised, in negligence cases arising out of the 3M Capital Hip experience, for achieving ‘inadequate’ cementation

Aims: To determine which radiological features were most significant in aseptic loosening (AL) of Charnley total hip replacement (THR) and to compare the prevalence of these features between a specialist hip surgeon and those from the general setting. Method: An analysis was performed of the initial post-operative radiographs of three groups of Charnley femoral stems: I: Failed stems within 5 years due to AL, as registered in the Trent Regional Arthroplasty Study (TRAS). II: 44 consecutive Charnley THRs performed by a single, ‘specialist’ hip surgeon. III Controls: A randomly selected cohort group from the TRAS (proven to be clinically and radiologically intact at 5 years). Results: The most significant radiographic features of failure were: (i) mantle width < 2mm in any zone giving an odds ratio of 21.0 for failure (CI 3.3 to∞; p< 0.05); (ii) “inadequate” cementation grade (Barrack grades C and D) giving an odds ratio of 9.5 for failure (CI 3.2 to 28; p< 0.05). The specialist hip surgeon achieved a significantly higher proportion (79.5%) of complete cement mantles (> 2mm) than the controls (50%) (Chi^2 = 9.455, df = 1, p=0.002). There were also a higher proportion of adequate cementation grades (88.6% vs 82%) although this difference was not significant (Chi^2= 0.947, df = 1, p=0.330). Conclusion: We have demonstrated features identified on radiographs of Charnley femoral stems predictive of failure. In our study a specialist hip surgeon achieved fewer flaws than those detected across a regional ‘average’. This suggests surgical technique can influence radiological results and thus outcome. This needs to be emphasized, particularly during training, in the hope of improving overall results in the future. However, even a specialist’s cementation appeared inadequate in 11.4% of cases, suggesting that factors outside the surgeon’s control, influence cement grading. This is important from a medico-legal standpoint because surgeons are being criticised for not achieving adequate cementation in negligence cases

In Sweden 99 % of all complaints against doctors are handled by a public authority, The Medical Responsibility Board (HSAN). This way it is very rare fore a medical complaint to reach the judicial courts in Sweden. HSAN is a national authority that assesses medical negligence. If health care staff is at fault, the Board can take disciplinary action against them. The Board is made up of nine members. The chairman is a lawyer with judicial experience and the other members have experience from various sectors of the health services. Anyone who is or has been a patient can file a complaint to HSAN. The National Board of Health and Welfare, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice can also file complaints to HSAN. The complaint must contain details of the actual examination, care or treatment referred to, when and where it took place and, if possible, who was at fault and what the fault is considered to be. HSAN must be informed of the subject of complaint within two years of the incident’s occurrence. If this is not the case, disciplinary responsibility will have lapsed. HSAN’s decisions are always public. A case is prepared by getting the opinion of the accused doctor and a copy of the patient records. When a case has been prepared medical experts with links to HSAN review it. HSAN subsequently examines the case and arrives at a decision. The chairman alone examines certain cases following a review by medical experts. Copies of the decision are sent both to the person who filed the complaint and those to the person(s) cited. If the person filing the complaint is not happy with the decision, it may be appealed. The appeal must be lodged within three weeks from the date the decision is made public. The court of appeal is the county administrative court. HSAN does not handle requests for economical compensation. If the plaintiff wants money he/she has to go to court. This happens extremely seldom. HSAN handles about 3000 cases a year and in less that 6–10 % a decision against the accused is made. 70 % of the cases concern doctors and 30 % dentists, nurses and others. The number of orthopaedics cases is about 300 per year and a ruling against the surgeon happens in less than 10 %. The complaints in orthopaedics concern clinical examination, faulty diagnostics (usually that x-rays were not taken), faulty treatment and misconduct. Most of the cases in orthopaedics originate in the emergency department

Aims

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) can be associated with chronic severe lower back pain and long-term autonomic dysfunction. This study assesses the recently defined core outcome set for CES in a cohort of patients using validated questionnaires.

Aims

A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5% to 7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes among the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients’ quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures.

Informed consent is a very important part of surgical treatment. In this paper, we report a number of legal judgements in spinal surgery where there was no criticism of the surgical procedure itself. The fault that was identified was a failure to inform the patient of alternatives to, and material risks of, surgery, or overemphasizing the benefits of surgery. In one case, there was a promise that a specific surgeon was to perform the operation, which did not ensue. All of the faults in these cases were faults purely of the consenting process. In many cases, the surgeon claimed to have explained certain risks to the patient but was unable to provide proof of doing so. We propose a checklist that, if followed, would ensure that the surgeon would take their patients through the relevant matters but also, crucially, would act as strong evidence in any future court proceedings that the appropriate discussions had taken place. Although this article focuses on spinal surgery, the principles and messages are applicable to the whole of orthopaedic surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:355–360.

Aims

Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended that the provision of written information is available and may take the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience. The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions.

Our aim in this paper was to investigate the guidelines and laws governing informed consent in the English-speaking world. We noted a recent divergence from medical paternalism within the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ruling of 2015. We investigated the situation in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of America. We read the national guidance regarding obtaining consent for surgical intervention for each country. We used the references from this guidance to identify the laws that helped inform the guidance, and reviewed the court documents for each case.

There has been a trend towards a more patient-focused approach in consent in each country. Surgeons should be aware of the guidance and legal cases so that they can inform patients fully, and prevent legal problems if outdated practices are followed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:687–92.

The results of hip and knee replacement surgery are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are both major operations and have recognised complications. We present a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and 523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection. Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in each group.

Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement, although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:122–6.