Objective:

Spinal surgery is among the specialities with the highest rates of complications and of peri-operative morbidity and mortality. The number of spinal surgeries performed is rising year on year in France. The objectives of this study were to identify the main reasons for malpractice claims after spinal surgery in France, to evaluate the impact of avoidable errors, and to examine differences between civil lawsuits (private institutions) and administrative lawsuits (public institutions).

Hypothesis:

The leading reasons for malpractice litigation are avoidable errors such as inadequate patient information, errors in indications, and inadequate post-operative monitoring.

Material and methods:

We reviewed malpractice claims related to spinal surgery and recorded in two French databases (Legifrance and Doctrine) in 1990-2020. We combined the indexing term “surgery” with any of the following terms: “disc”, “spine”, “cervical”, “vertebral”, “lumbar”, “scoliosis”, “disc replacement”, and “fusion”. The search was performed by three orthopaedic surgeons who were blind to patient data and recorded the allegations, verdicts, and pay-outs.

Results:

We included 275 claims. The main plaintiff allegations were inadequate information (34.5%), infection (22%), spinal-cord injury (17%), and errors in indication (13%). Among these reasons, 56.7% may have been partly avoidable. In private institutions, claims for infection and for erroneous indication were significantly more common than in public institutions (p=0.02 for both), whereas the opposite was true for spinal-cord injury (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

After spinal surgery in France, the most common malpractice allegation was inadequate information. Over half the claims were related to potentially avoidable factors. Among allegations, errors in indication were significantly more common in civil than in administrative lawsuits.

Level of proof:

IV, retrospective observational database study.