Litigation after primary total hip and knee arthroplasties in France: review of legal actions over the past 30years.

Abstract

Since the law of March 4, 2002, several modifications have impacted medical practices and their medico-legal implications. In case of an infectious complication not related to a fault of the practitioners (surgeons, anesthetists), the patient has the right to compensation assumed by the care structures. Moreover, the lack of preoperative information is no longer just a failing of the ethical standards but a breach of medical and legal obligations. Then, aims of this study were: (1) to describe the reasons for a lawsuit in France following total primary hip (THA) and total knee (TKA) arthroplasties and (2) to compare litigation characteristics of private and public practices. Civil (private practice) and administrative (public practice) court decisions in France between 1990 and 2020 were collected using the two main legal data sources (Legifrance, Doctrine). Eighty-three TKA and 173 THA cases were identified. Reasons for complaint in primary THA were mainly infection (29%), prosthetic failures (18%), nerves injuries (17%), and leg length discrepancies (11%). The main grounds for complaint in favor of the plaintiff were diagnostic or indication mistakes (100%), infections (80%), especially if a lack of information was recognized (88%). Reasons for complaint following primary TKA were mainly infections (65%) and persistent pain or stiffness (12%). Whatever the reason, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff in about 2/3 of the cases. THAs were more at risk of appeal in administrative procedures than in civil (p = 0.008). There were more cases of implant failure in civil proceedings (p = 0.008). Indemnities after primary THA was higher in public activity litigation (p = 0.04). There were no differences in verdicts, grounds for complaints, and compensation between public and private practices for primary TKA. The main complaint about all the arthroplasties in France was a septic complication. The lack of information could be an added pejorative element for the final verdict.