The International Journal of Spine Surgery· 2026Q1
Exploring the Legal Landscape of Intradural Spine Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis of US Malpractice Claims
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Malpractice litigation for intradural spine procedures is rare, with an estimated annual frequency of 1 per 1200 mass resections, 1 per 2950 tethered cord releases, and 1 per 4600 myelomeningocele repairs. Improper informed consent and procedural errors were the most common allegations.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Intradural spine procedure litigation is rare, with estimated annual frequencies of 1/1200 (mass resection), 1/2950 (tethered cord release), and 1/4600 (myelomeningocele repair).
- Improper informed consent (63.6%) and procedural error (50.0%) were the most common allegations in malpractice claims.
- Physicians were named in 86.4% of cases, and only 4.5% resulted in a plaintiff verdict.
- The mean time from surgery to legal resolution was 70.2 months.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intradural spine procedures carry substantial neurological risk and technical complexity, yet their associated medicolegal landscape remains poorly characterized. Improved understanding of their litigation patterns may help inform patient counseling, perioperative communication, and risk-reduction strategies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of malpractice litigation involving common intradural spine procedures: myelomeningocele repair, tethered cord release, and intradural mass resection, using the Westlaw legal database. Inclusion required that one of the specified procedures was central to the litigation and had been performed. Data were extracted on plaintiff demographics, allegations, and outcomes. RESULTS: From an initial review of 417 cases, 22 met the inclusion criteria. Most cases (63.6%) occurred after 2005. The estimated annual litigation frequency was 1 per 1200 intradural mass resection procedures, 1 per 2950 tethered cord release procedures, and 1 per 4600 myelomeningocele repairs. Common allegations included improper informed consent (63.6%) and procedural error (50.0%). Physicians were named in 86.4% of cases, followed by hospitals or clinics (72.7%) and government entities (27.3%). At the time of review, only 4.5% had resulted in a plaintiff verdict. The mean time from surgery to legal resolution was 70.2 months. CONCLUSION: Intradural spine litigation represents an underexplored area of medical malpractice. Informed consent and procedural error were most frequently cited, highlighting the potential benefit of improved preoperative communication and surgical protocols. Intradural mass resection had the highest estimated annual frequency and involved only adult plaintiffs, reflecting possible differences between adult and pediatric populations, such as differences in baseline functional status and the role of guardians in pediatric claims.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. The International Journal of Spine Surgery, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Pharmacy
PharmacyHealth Professions