ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2014
A nine-year review of medicolegal claims in neurosurgery.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personal and psychosocial factors of burnout: A survey within the French neurosurgical community.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Review
- Beyond complication rates: Nationwide neurosurgical compensation claims in a No-fault system.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- The application of medical ethics in the developing countries - A neurosurgical perspective.Brain & spine · 2024Review
- Clinical students' reflections on the preclinical anatomy learning experience.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Diagnosis and treatment of meralgia paresthetica between 2005 and 2018: a national cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
- Medico-legal litigation of UK physiotherapists in relation to cauda equina syndrome: a multimethods study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Factors Influencing Surgical Outcomes for Intradural Spinal Tumours: A Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Study.Cureus · 2022Article
- Missed cervical spine subluxation leading to bilateral facet dislocation with severe deformity requiring 360 fixation.Radiology case reports · 2021Article
- Current Practice in Preoperative Virtual and Physical Simulation in Neurosurgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Current Care and Investigational Therapies in Achondroplasia.Current osteoporosis reports · 2017Review
- The practice of cranial neurosurgery and the malpractice liability environment in the United States.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeurosurgery remains among the highest malpractice risk specialties. This study aimed to identify areas in neurosurgery associated with litigation, attendant causes and costs.
methodsRetrospective analysis was conducted of 42 closed litigation cases treated by neurosurgeons at one hospital between March 2004 and March 2013. Data included clinical event, timing and reason for claim, operative course and legal outcome.
resultsTwenty-nine claims were defended out of court and twelve were settled out of court. One case required court attendance and was defended. Of the 42 claims, 28, 13 and 1 related to spinal (0.3% of caseload), cranial (0.1% of caseload) and peripheral nerve (0.07% of caseload) surgery respectively. The most common causes of claims were faulty surgical technique (43%), delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis (17%), lack of information (14%) and delayed treatment (12%), with a likelihood of success of 39%, 29%, 17% and 20% respectively. The highest median payouts were for claims against faulty surgical technique (£230,000) and delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis (£212,650). The mean delay between clinical event and claim was 664 days.
conclusionsSpinal surgery carries the highest litigation risk versus cranial and peripheral nerve surgery. Claims are most commonly against faulty surgical technique and delayed diagnosis/misdiagnosis, which have the highest success rates and payouts. In spinal surgery, the most common cause of claims is faulty surgical technique. In cranial surgery, the most common cause is lack of information. Claims may occur years after the clinical event, necessitating thorough contemporaneous documentation for adequate future defence. We emphasise thorough patient consultation and meticulous surgical technique to minimise litigation in neurosurgical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.