ArticleInterventional pain medicine2023
Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to spinal cord stimulator.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Introduction: Malpractice claims analysis is performed by several specialties to improve quality of patient care and to identify areas where physicians can improve their practice to mitigate the incidence of committing malpractice. The Food and Drug Administration has flagged over 80,000 injuries caused by spinal cord stimulator (SCS), making them the 3rd most flagged medical device. This study analyzed malpractice claims due to SCS by querying two legal databases widely used in medicolegal research. Methods: Westlaw Edge and VerdictSearch were queried for malpractice cases filed between the years 2000 and 2022 using the keywords "spinal cord stimulator." Case inclusion criteria was defined as a plaintiff's basis of litigation resting on a claim of medical malpractice due to SCS. Additional data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff sex and age, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of the filed claim, payment or settlement amount, and sustained injuries. Result: Of the 1773 reviewed cases, 45 cases were included and categorized as battery or implantable pulse generator malfunction (35.56 %), lead complications (28.89 %), surgical complications (20.00 %), and miscellaneous (15.56 %). Four (8.89 %) cases resulted in settlement, 11 (24.44 %) in a plaintiff verdict, and 30 (68.00 %) resulted in a defendant verdict. Claims filed due to infection related to SCS were more likely to result in a defendant verdict ( Conclusion: Our findings suggest obtaining adequate neuroimaging preoperatively with MRIs, disclosing neurological risks specifically paralysis on informed consent, and evaluating radiography intraoperative and postoperatively with anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral x-ray films to ensure proper SCS placement are practices that may mitigate malpractice due to SCS. Battery defects and lead complications were the most common grounds for SCS-related malpractice claims.
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.