Litigations in orthopedics and trauma surgery: reasons, dynamics, and profiles.

BACKGROUND: In recent literature, the increasing number of medical litigations, both in terms of the number of cases being filed and the substantive costs associated with lawsuits, has been described. This study aims to provide an overview of the profile of litigation for orthopedic and trauma surgery to describe the differences and the development of the number of cases over time. PATIENTS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of all litigations between 2000 and 2017 was conducted using the institutional legal database. The causes of litigation were documented and classified into seven major categories. In addition to plaintiff characteristics, the litigation outcomes and the differences between emergency and elective surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 230 cases were evaluated. The mean age of the plaintiffs was 44.6 ± 20.1 years, and 56.8% were female. The main reasons for litigation were claimed inappropriate management (46.1%), misdiagnosis (22.6), and poor nursing care (8.3%). Significantly more litigations were filed against surgeons of the orthopedic subspecialty compared with trauma surgeons (78%; p ≤ 0.0001). There were significantly fewer litigations per 1000 cases filed overall in 2009-2017 (65% less; p = 0.003) than in 2000-2008. CONCLUSION: Our results could not confirm the often-stated trend of having more litigations against orthopedic and trauma surgeons. Although the absolute numbers increased, the number of litigations per 1000 patients treated declined. Patients who underwent elective surgery were more likely to file complaints than emergency patients.

[Distal femur replacement in extensive defects of the distal femur in revision arthroplasty]. / Distaler Femurersatz bei ausgedehnten femoralen Defekten in der Revisionsendoprothetik.

OBJECTIVE: Use of distal femur replacement implants in advanced bone defects after multiple bone-damaging revision surgery on the knee joint. INDICATIONS: Advanced femoral bone defects (AORI IIb and III defects) in revision arthroplasty of the knee joint. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Persistent or current joint infection, general infection, defect and/or nonreconstructable insufficient extensor apparatus. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Standard access including existing skin scars, arthrotomy, removal of cement spacer if necessary and removal of multiple tissue samples; preparation of tibia first to define the joint line, then preparation of the femur. Determining the resection height of the remaining femur corresponding to the preoperative planning. Gradual drilling using flexible medullary drills and then preparation by femoral rasps. Two stem systems are available for coupling to the distal femur (MUTARS). First there is the standard MUTARS stem (available lengths of 90, 120 and 160 mm); if longer shafts are required, so-called revision shaft (RS) stems are necessary (stems available in 150, 200 and 250 mm). In case of extensive femoral defects extension sleeves in different lengths can be used to reconstruct the femur. After preparation the implant position and the joint line height is checked. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Full weight bearing, in case of existing bony defects possibly partial load of a maximum of 10 kg für 6 weeks; regular wound control; limitation of the degree of flexion only with weakened or reconstructed extensor apparatus. RESULTS: Between February 2015 and August 2018, a total of 34 distal femurs were implanted. In 19 patients, the implantation was performed after septic and aseptic loosening of a knee prosthesis. All patients had an intraoperative AORI III defect of the femur. Of the 19 patients who underwent a distal femur implantation, 7 had to be revised due to a persistent infection; 4 of these 7 patients had to be revised several times and, finally, had a conversion to a knee arthrodesis. One patient had to undergo a revision with a stem change due to a secondary aseptic loosening of the cemented stem. The mean follow-up period was 11.2 months (range 4-29 months). The follow-up included clinical examination, KSS (Knee Society Score) and X­ray analysis. A significant improvement in range of motion from 65 ± 16° to 83 ± 14° (p < 0.01) was noted. The KSS improved significantly from 69 ± 9 points preoperatively to 115 ± 15 points postoperatively. Four patients complained of persistent symptoms during exercise after 9 months; femoral shaft pain was denied by all patients. After about 11 months, an implant survival rate of 73.7% was observed in the patient collective.

[Acetabular revision arthroplasty with a novel cementless augment-and-modular-cage system (MRS-C) : Surgical technique and preliminary clinical results]. / Hüftpfannenwechsel mit einem neuartigen zementfreien "Augment-and-modular-cage"-Revisionssystem (MRS-C) : Chirurgische Technik und erste klinische Ergebnisse.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal reconstruction of acetabular anatomy and primarily stable bridging even of large bone defects in hip revision surgery by intraoperative cementless application of highly modular components of the MRS-TITAN Comfort (MRS-C) system according to the augment-and-modular-cage principle. INDICATIONS: Acetabular defect situations in hip revision surgery, hereditary/acquired acetabular deformities, severe secondary hip osteoarthritis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Extended periacetabular defects of the dorsal pillar, pelvic discontinuities, persisting posttraumatic or periprosthetic infections, lack of intraoperative bony anchorage options. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Conventional positioning. Flexible selection of approach (posterolateral, anterolateral or transgluteal) to the hip joint, if possible using a previous approach. Implant removal, preparation and intraoperative acetabular defect evaluation. Optional impaction bone grafting for biological downsizing. Selection of modular components and augments depending on the defect. Preparation of the obturator foramen for anchorage of the caudal flange. Optional preparation of the os ilium for additional fixation of the cage with flanges. Fixation with polyaxial screws and selection of version/inclination of the cup component. Selection of the inlay (polyethylene/ceramic). POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Partial weight-bearing with 20 kg body-weight for 6 weeks with crutches. Prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis and heterotopic ossification. Additional adapted antibiotic therapy in cases of infection. RESULTS: A minimum 1­year follow-up of 42 patients showed significant improvements of Harris Hip Scores (p < 0.0001), adequate reconstruction of the physiologic center of rotation (x-ray controlled in the vertical plane, referenced to the contralateral side), and a clear reduction of preoperative leg length discrepancies. No significant changes in range of motion. No implant-associated complications noted. Based on the short follow-up results, the implant proves as suitable for reconstruction of even large acetabular bone defects.