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:
Recently, several high impact randomised controlled
trials have been published suggesting no greater benefit from orthopaedic
surgery over conservative treatment, or limited surgical intervention.
These studies can have profound effects on clinical practice, leading
to the abandonment of previously widely-used operations. How do surgeons who believe these operations are beneficial over
conservative treatment rationalise these findings, and justify their
use with hospital administrators and health care funders who require
evidence for the value and efficacy of surgical treatment? Cite this article:
In an adult man the mean femoral anteversion angle measures approximately 15°, for which the reasons have never been fully elucidated. An assortment of simian and quadruped mammalian femora was therefore examined and the anteversion angles measured. A simple static mathematical model was then produced to explain the forces acting on the neck of the femur in the quadruped and in man. Femoral anteversion was present in all the simian and quadruped femora and ranged between 4° and 41°. It thus appears that man has retained this feature despite evolving from quadrupedal locomotion. Quadrupeds generally mobilise with their hips flexed forwards from the vertical; in this position, it is clear that anteversion gives biomechanical advantage against predominantly vertical forces. In man with mobilisation on vertical femora, the biomechanical advantage of anteversion is against forces acting mainly in the horizontal plane. This has implications in regard to the orientation of hip replacements.
