Injury and Liability Associated with Implantable Devices for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Due to an increase in implantable device-related anesthesia pain medicine claims, the authors investigated anesthesia liability associated with these devices. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, the authors identified 148 pain medicine device claims from 1990 or later in the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project Database. Device-related damaging events included medication administration events, infections, hematomas, retained catheter fragments, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, cord or cauda equina trauma, device placed at wrong level, stimulator incorrectly programmed, delay in recognition of granuloma formation, and other issues. RESULTS: The most common devices were implantable drug delivery systems (IDDS; 64%) and spinal cord stimulators (29%). Device-related care consisted of surgical device procedures (n = 107) and IDDS maintenance (n = 41). Severity of injury was greater in IDDS maintenance claims (56% death or severe permanent injury) than in surgical device procedures (26%, P < 0.001). Death and brain damage in IDDS maintenance claims resulted from medication administration errors (n = 13; 32%); spinal cord injury resulted from delayed recognition of granuloma formation (n = 9; 22%). The most common damaging events for surgical device procedures were infections, inadequate pain relief, cord trauma, retained catheter fragments, and subcutaneous hygroma. Care was more commonly assessed as less than appropriate (78%) and payments more common (63%) in IDDS maintenance than in surgical device procedure claims (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Half of IDDS maintenance claims were associated with death or permanent severe injury, most commonly from medication errors or failure to recognize progressive neurologic deterioration. Practitioners implanting or managing devices for chronic pain should exercise caution in these areas to minimize patient harm.

[Apomorphine therapy versus deep rain stimulation. Clinical and economic aspects in patients with advanced Parkinson disease]. / Apomorphintherapie versus tiefe Hirnstimulation. Klinische und ökonomische Aspekte bei Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem Morbus Parkinson.

Long-term dopaminergic treatment of Parkinson's disease is complicated by the occurrence of dyskinesia and motor fluctuations and is responsible for increasing the costs of treatment. In these patients, continuous subcutaneous therapy with the dopamine agonist apomorphine or deep-brain stimulation represents a promising strategy. While the costs for the treatment with apomorphine are covered by health insurance, separate reimbursement for deep-brain stimulation does not exist in Germany. The case reports (n = 3) presented here emphasize that deep-brain stimulation is less cost-intensive than subcutaneous treatment with apomorphine in selected patients. Even in the first postoperative year costs for medication and hospital stays were reduced by approximately 60%. Moreover, in all three patients, motor complications improved after deep-brain stimulation in comparison to previous subcutaneous application of apomorphine. Thus, to further ensure deep-brain stimulation in parkinsonian patients it is mandatory to find a mode of reimbursement for the institutions concerned.