Medico-Legal Implications of Video Recordings of Clinic Visits in Malpractice Claims Against Medical Providers.

OBJECTIVE: Although audio-video recordings of clinic visits improve patient satisfaction and recall, the associated presumed risk of increased malpractice claims limits their use. In this study, we identified whether video recording clinic visits was associated with increases in professional liability claims. METHODS: From 2015 to 2017, the institution's loss run was analyzed, and the rates of medical malpractice claims per physician-year were compared between physicians who used video recordings of clinic visits (V-RoCs) and those who did not. The term "users" was applied to all physicians whose mean percentage of patient visits with video recording was greater than the mean percentage for the practice overall. RESULTS: Over three years, 15,254 patients used V-RoCs. The use of video recordings for clinic visits increased at a rate of 23% per year. No association was found between video recordings and increased malpractice claims. The rate of all claims between users and nonusers did not differ significantly (P=0.66). Of seven paid claims or lawsuits from 2000 to 2017, none were against physicians who used video recordings. CONCLUSION: Video recording of patient-physician encounters was not associated with an increase in malpractice lawsuits. According to federal law, a patient can legally record a clinic encounter without physician consent, which has many ethical implications. Formalizing the recording process is beneficial for both parties and allows the resource to be used to its maximum potential.

Single-position prone lateral transpsoas approach: early experience and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) via a transpsoas approach is a workhorse minimally invasive approach for lumbar arthrodesis that is often combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. There has been increasing interest in performing single-position surgery, allowing access to the anterolateral and posterior spine without requiring patient repositioning. The feasibility of the transpsoas approach in patients in the prone position has been reported. Herein, the authors present a consecutive case series of all patients who underwent single-position prone transpsoas LLIF performed by an individual surgeon since adopting this approach. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent single-position prone LLIF for any indication between October 2019 and November 2020. Pertinent operative details (levels, cage use, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, complications) and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative and 3-month postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for interbody subsidence. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 29 patients (97%) underwent successful treatment with the prone lateral approach over the study interval; the approach was aborted in 1 patient, whose data were excluded. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.9 (9.3) years; 75% (21) were women. Thirty-nine levels were treated: 18 patients (64%) had single-level fusion, 9 (32%) had 2-level fusion, and 1 (4%) had 3-level fusion. The most commonly treated levels were L3-4 (n = 15), L2-3 (n = 12), and L4-5 (n = 11). L1-2 was fused in 1 patient. The mean operative time was 286.5 (100.6) minutes, and the mean retractor time was 29.2 (13.5) minutes per level. The mean fluoroscopy duration was 215.5 (99.6) seconds, and the mean intraoperative radiation dose was 170.1 (94.8) mGy. Intraoperative subsidence was noted in 1 patient (4% of patients, 3% of levels). Intraoperative lateral access complications occurred in 11% of patients (1 cage repositioning, 2 inadvertent ruptures of anterior longitudinal ligament). Subsidence occurred in 5 of 22 patients (23%) with radiographic follow-up, affecting 6 of 33 levels (18%). Postoperative functional testing (Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, visual analog scale-back and leg pain) identified significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This single-surgeon consecutive case series demonstrates that this novel technique is well tolerated and has acceptable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Larger patient series with longer follow-up are needed to further elucidate the safety profile and long-term outcomes of single-position prone LLIF.

Posterior Fossa Hemorrhage Following the Use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin: Lessons Learned and Recommendations for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism.

Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common preventable cause of morbidity and mortality among neurosurgery patients. Several studies have concluded that the use of chemical prophylaxis among patients undergoing a craniotomy reduces the incidence of VTE, and it is presumed to be safe. However, these studies do not differentiate between a supratentorial and posterior fossa craniotomy. Furthermore, the prophylactic or therapeutic use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been reported to increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. In this study, we describe the clinical details and outcomes for all patients who underwent posterior fossa craniotomy and developed posterior fossa hemorrhage secondary to postoperative use of LMWH during the study period. We also propose recommendations pertaining to postoperative heparin use after posterior fossa surgeries. Methods Data were retrospectively collected for patients presenting with posterior fossa hemorrhage following anticoagulant use among those who previously underwent posterior fossa craniotomy by the senior author (R.W.P.) from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2018. Results We identified five patients who experienced postoperative hemorrhage while receiving LMWH in the initial setting of posterior fossa craniotomy. After hemorrhaging, four patients had low Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores (≤3) and failed to return to their baseline neurological status. These four patients had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15/15 in the immediate postoperative period and received heparin within 72 hours of surgery. Conclusions Based on our findings, there is a possible association between the increased risk of hemorrhage and the early postoperative use of LMWH. The debilitating outcomes among the majority of these patients warrant the cautious use and further investigation of postoperative LMWH to appropriately quantify the risk. Further comparative studies with a larger sample size are required to provide insight into the pathophysiology of our findings.

Prone Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Decompression and Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Grade II Spondylolisthesis: 2-Dimensional Operative Video.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) provides indirect decompression without disruption of the posterior elements. It involves a larger implant footprint than that of posterior approaches. LLIF is typically performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. When a posterior fixation is indicated, a second-stage procedure is performed with the patient in the prone position. Single-position surgery provides the potential advantage of decreased operative time because both procedures can be performed without patient repositioning. Single-position LLIF and posterior fixation in the prone position have not been well validated to date. Herein, techniques for LLIF, percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, and facetectomy in the prone position are shown. A 76-yr-old woman with osteoporosis presented with severe back and bilateral leg pain refractory to conservative management and imaging findings of grade 2 dynamic anterolisthesis at L4-L5 with severe stenosis. She underwent LLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation and facetectomy. She was placed on a Jackson table in the prone position for the entire procedure, which was performed in a single stage. Percutaneous pedicle screws were placed, followed by a left-sided minimally invasive facetectomy. A left-sided retroperitoneal transpsoas approach was used to perform the LLIF in standard fashion. Finally, the rods were locked into place. Postoperatively, the patient was neurologically stable, and imaging confirmed good hardware placement. At the 6-wk follow-up, the patient was doing well. This case demonstrates the feasibility of performing LLIF and posterior fixation in a single stage in the prone position. The patient provided informed consent. Used with permission from Barrow Neurological Institute.