Litigation in arthroscopic surgery: a 20-year analysis of legal actions in France.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to identify the epidemiological characteristics of litigation following arthroscopic procedures, performed in private practice and public hospitals in France. The secondary objective was to establish a risk profile for medical malpractice lawsuits after arthroscopic surgery. METHODS: All court decisions related to arthroscopic surgery between 1994 and 2020 were collected and reviewed cases from the two main French legal databases (Legifrance and Doctrine). Data were retrospectively collected and included: gender, joint and defendant's specialty involved, reason behind the lawsuit, initial indication and the type of arthroscopic procedure performed. The final verdicts as well as the indemnity awarded to the plaintiff (if any) were recorded. RESULTS: One-hundred eighty cases met the inclusion criteria of the study and were analyzed: 58 cases were before administrative courts and 122 were before civil courts. An orthopaedic surgeon was involved alone or in solidum in 45.6% of cases (82/180), followed by anesthesiologists in 5.6% (10/180). The private surgery center or public hospital were implicated in 63.9% (115/180) of cases. The 2 most common joints involved in litigation following arthroscopic surgery were the knee (82.2%, n = 148) and the shoulder (11.1%, n = 20). The main reasons behind the lawsuit were related to postoperative infection in 78/180 cases and to a musculoskeletal complication in 45/180 cases (25%). A failure to inform was also reported in 34/180 cases (18.9%). Of the 180 cases, 122 cases (67.8%) resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The average indemnity award for the plaintiff was 77.984 euros [2.282-1.117.667]. A verdict for the plaintiff was significantly associated with postoperative infection or a wrong-side surgery, while technical error and musculoskeletal complications were more significantly likely to result in a verdict in favor of the defendant (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: This study evaluated and mapped lawsuits following after arthroscopic surgery in France over a period of more than 20 years. The main joint involved in lawsuits was knee. The main causes of lawsuits following arthroscopic surgery were related to postoperative infection, musculoskeletal complications and failure to inform. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

The concept of a waiting period for preoperative patient consent: Prospective study of 51 shoulder arthroscopy cases.

INTRODUCTION: The French Code of Public Health (CSP) does not explicitly require that patients should be given a certain amount of time to think about a procedure, except for cosmetic surgery, where 15 days is required (Art. L 6322-2 CSP). We hypothesized that patients require a waiting period during their decision-making process for scheduled shoulder arthroscopy procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study of 51 patients analysed the concept of a waiting period based on a 10-item questionnaire. A comparative statistical approach was used and the P values were calculated using a paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients, 42 (82%) rejected the concept of a waiting period before the procedure and 37 patients (73%) did not want a mandatory waiting period imposed by law. DISCUSSION: This study looked at the decision-making process during scheduled orthopaedic surgery and differentiated between the conscious and unconscious approach corresponding to an active and passive waiting period. A waiting period does not allow patients to make a conceptually deliberative decision that conforms to the criteria defined by the French Health Authority. This study rejects the need for a mandatory waiting period imposed on surgeons and patients as it does not integrate itself into the informative model of ethical decision-making for scheduled shoulder arthroscopy. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective, observational; level of evidence IV.