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:
There are three basic concepts that are important to the biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. First, the outer diameter of the screw determines pullout strength, while the inner diameter determines fatigue strength. Secondly, when inserting a pedicle screw, the dorsal cortex of the spine should not be violated and the screws on each side should converge and be of good length. Thirdly, fixation can be augmented in cases of severe osteoporosis or revision. A trajectory parallel or caudal to the superior endplate can minimise breakage of the screw from repeated axial loading. Straight insertion of the pedicle screw in the mid-sagittal plane provides the strongest stability. Rotational stability can be improved by adding transverse connectors. The indications for their use include anterior column instability, and the correction of rotational deformity.
Procedures performed at the incorrect anatomical site are commonly perceived as being relatively rare. However, they can be a devastating event for patients and doctors. Evidence from the United Kingdom and North America suggests that wrong-site, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient events occur more commonly than we think. Furthermore, their incidence may be increasing as NHS Trusts increase the volume and complexity of procedures undertaken in order to cope with increasing demands on the system. In previous studies from North America orthopaedic surgery has been found to be the worst-offending specialty. In this paper we review the existing literature on wrong-site surgery and analyse data from the National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Litigation Authority on 292 cases of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales. Orthopaedic surgery accounted for 87 (29.8%) of these cases. In the year 2006 to 2007, the rate of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales was highest in orthopaedic surgery, in which the estimated rate was 1:105 712 cases.
The indications for lumbar
Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.
