Neurosurgical Malpractice Litigation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Neurosurgery has one of the highest risks for medical malpractice claims. We reviewed the factors associated with neurosurgical malpractice claims and litigation in the United States of America (USA) and reported the outcomes through a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We sought to identify pertinent studies containing information about medical malpractice claims and outcomes involving neurosurgeons in the USA.

RESULTS

We identified 15 retrospective studies spanning from 2002 to 2023 that reviewed over 7,890 malpractice claims involving practicing neurosurgeons in the USA. Disparities were evident in neurosurgical litigation, with 474 cases linked to brain-related surgeries and a larger proportion, 1926 cases, tied to spine surgeries. The most commonly filed claims were intra-procedural errors (37.4%), delayed diagnoses (32.1%), and failure to treat (28.8 %). Less frequently filed claims included misdiagnosis or choice of incorrect procedure (18.4%), occurrence of death (17.3%), test misinterpretation (14.4%), failure to appropriately refer patients for evaluation/treatment (14.3%), unnecessary surgical procedures (13.3 %), and lack of informed consent (8.3%). The defendant was favored in 44.3% of claims, while 31.3% of lawsuits, 17.7% of verdicts favored the plaintiff, and 16.6% reached an out-of-court settlement. Only 3.5% of lawsuits found both parties liable.

CONCLUSION

Neurosurgery is a high-risk specialty with one of the highest rates of malpractice claims. Spine claims had a significantly higher rate of filed malpractice claims, while cranial malpractice claims were associated with higher litigation compensation. Predictably, spinal cord injuries play a crucial role in predicting litigation. Importantly, nonsurgical treatments are also a common source of liability in neurosurgical practice.

Comparative analysis of exoscope-assisted spine surgery versus operating microscope: A systematic review

Background

Limitations in the operative microscope (OM)'s mobility and suboptimal ergonomics created the opportunity for the development of the exoscope. This systematic review aims to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of exoscopes and OMs in spine surgery.

Methods

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in the major research databases. All studies evaluating the exoscopes and/or OMs in spinal procedures were included.

Results

There were 602 patients included in the 16 studies, with 539 spine surgery patients, 19 vascular cases, 1 neural pathology case, 19 cranial cases, and 24 tumor pathologies. When examining surgical outcomes with the exoscope, results were mixed. Compared to the OM, exoscope usage resulted in longer operative times in 7 studies, comparable times in 3 studies, and shorter operative times in 3 studies. Two studies found similar lengths of stay (LOS) for both tools, two reported longer LOS with exoscopes, and one indicated shorter hospital LOS with exoscopes. One study reported higher exoscope-related blood loss (EBL), but four other studies consistently showed reduced EBL. In terms of image quality, illumination, dynamic range, depth perception, ergonomics and cost-effectiveness, the exoscope was consistently rated superior, while findings across studies were mixed regarding the optical zoom ratio and mean scope adjustment (MSA). The learning curve for exoscope use was consistently reported as shorter in all studies.

Conclusion

Exoscopes present a viable alternative to OMs in spine surgery, offering multiple advantages, which supports their promising role in modern neurosurgical practice.

Future of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: A Narrative Review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capability of a machine to execute cognitive processes that are typically considered to be functions of the human brain. It is the study of algorithms that enable machines to reason and perform mental tasks, including problem-solving, object and word recognition, and decision-making. Once considered science fiction, AI today is a fact and an increasingly prevalent subject in both academic and popular literature. It is expected to reshape medicine, benefiting both healthcare professionals and patients. Machine learning (ML) is a subset of AI that allows machines to learn and make predictions by recognizing patterns, thus empowering the medical team to deliver better care to patients through accurate diagnosis and treatment. ML is expanding its footprint in a variety of surgical specialties, including general surgery, ophthalmology, cardiothoracic surgery, and vascular surgery, to name a few. In recent years, we have seen AI make its way into the operating theatres. Though it has not yet been able to replace the surgeon, it has the potential to become a highly valuable surgical tool. Rest assured that the day is not far off when AI shall play a significant intraoperative role, a projection that is currently marred by safety concerns. This review aims to explore the present application of AI in various surgical disciplines and how it benefits both patients and physicians, as well as the current obstacles and limitations facing its seemingly unstoppable rise.

Role of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in addiction disorders

Background

Addiction disorders pose significant challenges to public health, necessitating innovative treatments. This assesses deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a potential intervention for addiction disorders.

Methods

A literature review was carried out with a focus on the role of DBS in addiction disorders and its future implications in neurosurgical research.

Results

The online literature shows that DBS precisely modulates certain brain regions to restore addiction-related neural circuits and promote behavioral control.

Conclusion

Preclinical evidence demonstrates DBS's potential to rebalance neural circuits associated with addiction, and early clinical trials provide encouraging outcomes in enhancing addiction-related outcomes. Ethical considerations, long-term safety, and personalized patient selection require further investigation.