Wrong site surgery of the spine
A 42-year-old man came to Neurosurgeon A for neck pain radiating to his upper arms
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/804d2/804d269ed014b366d3611e103dbf4a801e4d58f2" alt=""
Presentation
On April 28, 2016, a 42-year-old man came to Neurosurgeon A on referral for neck pain with radiation to his upper arms and numbness. The patient’s history included a surgery on his right hand and medications included cyclobenzaprine and meloxicam.
Neurosurgeon A reviewed an MRI scan that revealed severe compression at C5-C6 and C6-7 with effacement of his spinal cord and severe foraminal impingement. The surgeon recommended a C5-6 and C6-7 anterior discectomy and fusion.
Physician action
On May 25, 2016, Neurosurgeon A took the patient to surgery. In the operative note, the surgeon mentioned that x-rays confirmed the location at C5-6 and C6-7. Hospital records show that two fluoroscopic images, interpreted by Radiologist A, were submitted from the OR showing surgical hardware was present from C5-C7. However, another hospital record indicated that the fluoroscopic images were submitted but there was not a radiology interpretation. The surgery was completed without complications, and the patient reported that he was doing well at his first postoperative visit approximately four weeks later.
On August 11, the patient returned for a six-week-follow-up and reported pain in his lumbar spine and symptoms of radiculopathy. A lumbar MRI was ordered and showed degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 without broad-based protrusion that touched the right and left S1 nerve root without canal stenosis or significant neuroforaminal narrowing.
At an October 3 visit, Neurosurgeon A diagnosed the patient with L5 sciatica. During this visit, the physician discussed the option of a hemilaminectomy and foraminotomy. The patient agreed to the surgery and scheduled it for November 23. However, the patient cancelled the surgery on November 22.
The patient began treatment with a pain management physician who performed epidural steroid injections on June 25, 2017, and December 19, 2017. The physician documented the patient’s history as including a C6-T1fusion in May 2016. The patient reported that since
the 2016 surgery he experienced numbness, tingling, headaches, and right-sided neck pain with radiation and a right C6 distribution. A cervical MRI taken in November 2018 showed a disc bulge at C5-6 resulting in mild right foraminal narrowing.
Neurosurgeon B performed a C5-C6 fusion and removed the previously placed hardware from C6-T1. The surgery lessened the patient’s symptoms of pain, numbness, and tingling.
Allegations
The patient filed a lawsuit against Neurosurgeon A alleging a wrong-level surgery of the spine. Instead of performing surgery at C5-6 and C6-7, the neurosurgeon performed the anterior discectomy and fusions at C6-7 and C7-T1.
Legal implications
The consultant physicians who reviewed this case agreed that Neurosurgeon A performed surgery at the unintended C6-7 and C7-T1 levels, instead of the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. One orthopedic surgeon stated that the safest and most common method for identifying the correct level in this type of surgery is via intraoperative x-ray or fluoroscopy that allows the surgeon to make a “marking shot.” None of the intraoperative imaging performed during the May 2016 surgery reflects that a marking shot was established, nor does Neurosurgeon A describe doing so in his operative report.
Another consultant criticized Neurosurgeon A for not obtaining post-fusion diagnostic imaging to confirm that the hardware was at the correct levels.
Disposition
This case was settled on behalf of Neurosurgeon A.
More on improper performance.
Disclaimer
This closed claim study is based on an actual malpractice claim from Texas Medical Liability Trust. This case illustrates how action or inaction on the part of the physicians led to allegations of professional liability, and how risk management techniques may have either prevented the outcome or increased the physician’s defensibility. This study has been modified to protect the privacy of the physicians and the patient.
Subscribe to Case Closed to receive insights from resolved cases.
You’ll receive two closed claim studies every month. These closed claim studies are provided to help physicians improve patient safety and reduce potential liability risks that may arise when treating patients.
Related Case Studies
Discover more insights, stories, and resources to keep you informed and inspired.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8c72/e8c7297ce7292b04e00e6ff7bfe1ee026732b4ba" alt=""
Retained surgical retractor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/efe4c/efe4c9bbb3f4842f9585209c7c0b71b6e23f1157" alt=""
Failure to timely intubate patient
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/65102/65102a2fc4beabe4804d2179f84efb35ed9c6d92" alt=""