ArticleOrthopedic reviews2020
Malpractice claims associated with foot surgery.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgery of the foot constitutes a substantial portion of orthopedic procedures, performed by both orthopedic surgeons and doctors of podiatric medicine. Little research exists on the medicolegal implications of foot surgery amongst these specialties. This study seeks to investigate the different medical and legal factors associated with foot surgery-based malpractice litigation. Malpractice data between 2004 and 2017 was collected using the VerdictSearch legal database. Cases involving foot surgery were identified, and case information including physician specialty, procedure, medical outcome, verdict, and payment amount were obtained. A total of 72 cases were analyzed. A majority of lawsuits involved podiatrists (76.4%), with orthopedic surgeons accounting for 15.3%. Lawsuits against podiatrists primarily occurred over elective procedures (94.5%) and most frequently involved plaintiff complaints of persistent pain (41.8%) or deformation (27.3%). Podiatrist cases most often involved allegations of failure to treat (45.5%) or inappropriate surgical procedure (27.3%). Orthopedic surgeons saw higher rates of urgent cases (45.5%), with surgical complications (27.3%) occurring at higher rates than podiatrists. Despite different trends in case types, similar rates of plaintiff victories, and mean payments were seen between podiatrists (25.5%, $911,884 ± 1,145,345) and orthopedic surgeons (27.3%, $975,555 ± 448,795). This investigation is the first to analyze malpractice trends amongst podiatrists and orthopedic surgeons. Differing factors related to medical and legal outcomes can suggest quality improvement targets for both specialties. This data may assist in reducing malpractice risk and refining patient care, particularly with regards to outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives during pre-operative counselling.
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.