This short contribution aims to explain how intervertebral disc ‘degeneration’ differs from normal ageing, and to suggest how mechanical loading and constitutional factors interact to cause disc degeneration and prolapse. We suggest that disagreement on these matters in medico-legal practice often arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of ‘soft-tissue injuries’

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

Aim. To compare spinal outcome measures between patients reviewed for medico-legal compensation claims relating to perceived injury at work to those having sustained serious structural injury in the form of unstable thoraco-lumbar fractures requiring internal fixation. Method. Two consecutive cohorts of 23 patients with healed spinal fractures and 21 patients with a perception of work related soft tissue injury were compared. Patient demographics and a range of outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Low Back Outcome score (LBOS), Modified Somatic Perception (MSP) and Modified Zung Depression (MZD) indices were measured. Results. 23 patients (8F; 15M) with spinal fractures (group 1) of average age 42 years (range 22-66) were followed up for a mean of 41 months (range 14-89, SD 23.3) post trauma and compared to 21 patients (6 females; 15 males) with self reported back pain (group 2) of average age 47 years (range 37-63), mean time since perceived injury of 42 months (range 12-62, SD 14.5). Both groups were comparable in terms of age and sex (P = 0.254 and 0.752 respectively). The average ODI was 28% (SD 18.5) compared to 52% (SD 17.1) in group 1 and 2 respectively (P value: 0.000087); LBOS 40 Vs 20 (P=0.000189); MSP 4 Vs 10 (0.01069); and MZD 20 Vs 36 (P=0.000296). Conclusion. Despite high energy trauma and significant structural damage to the spine, post-traumatic patients had better spinal outcome scores in all measures (ODI, LBO, MSP, MZD). This thereby defies 8 of the 9 Bradford Hill criteria of causation. The reasons for such differences are primarily psychosocial. Addressing obstacles to recovery may improve outcomes. There is no ‘dose-response’ curve to functional outcomes. In fact, uniquely the disability seems greater in the lower energy injury which is unique in trauma care

Whiplash injury is surrounded by controversy in both the medical and legal world. The debate on whether it is either a potentially serious medical condition or a social problem is ongoing. This paper briefly examines a selection of studies on low velocity whiplash injury (LVWI) and whiplash associated disorder (WAD) and touches upon the pathophysiological and epidemiological considerations, cultural and geographical differences and the effect of litigation on chronicity. The study concludes that the evidence for significant physical injury after LVWI is poor, and if significant disability is present after such injury, it will have to be explained in terms of psychosocial factors.

Aim

Identifying cervical spine injuries in confused or comatose patients with multiple injuries provides a diagnostic challenge. Our aim was to investigate the protocols which are used for the clearance of the cervical spine in these patients in English hospitals.