It is currently 17 Feb 2020 17:39

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 11:29 
User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2013 10:59
Posts: 666
A 50 year old engineer was seen by a neurosurgeon with an increasingly severe back pain. He was on strong pain killers and had been unable to work for several months before the consultation.

An MRI scan showed severe spinal stenosis at T11/T12 level. The surgeon advised spinal decompression and the patient agreed to this. He underwent a posterior discectomy at T11/T12 level. Postoperatively he complained of pain and weakness in the left leg and thigh and loss of movement in the right leg. A further MRI scan suggested a haematoma at the level of T12. He had emergency surgery to remove the haematoma but there was no improvement postoperatively. Although he had bladder and bowel control he was left with considerable weakness of the lower limbs. He was unable to walk and was no longer able to work. He sued the surgeon.

When the records were checked it was noted that the surgeon had not discussed or warned the patient of the possible risks of neurological complications. Several expert neurosurgeons who reviewed the case were of the view that posterior transdural approach undertaken by the surgeon for removal of a central thoracic disc protrusion had a much higher risk of spinal cord injury compared to the preferred anterior approach and fell short of what would be considered reasonable spinal surgical practice.

The case was settled for a substantial sum.

MPS writes: Clinicians are obliged to keep up-to-date in their field and undertake procedures that are recognised as standard by their peers with acceptable outcomes. Clinicians additionally need to demonstrate evidence of continuing professional education as part of their appraisal and revalidation processes.

This article is also posted under Medico Legal section.

Case reported by The Medical Protection Society (UK). September 2013

 Profile Send private message  
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2013 00:21 
User avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2013 02:28
Posts: 707
Hello Badri,
This raises the issue of allowing time to discuss with the patient , the pros and cons , of the procedure being undertaken .This would allow the patient to make an INFORMED CHOICE ,FOR WRITTEN CONSENT.


Thank you,
G Mohan.

 Profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: