Scholarlink

Background <p>Lumbar disc herniation surgery is among the most frequently performed procedures in neurosurgical practice, yet it remains one of the leading causes of medicolegal disputes. Understanding the judiciary’s perspective on such cases can provide valuable insights for improving both clinical decision-making and risk management.</p> Methods <p>This study analyzed 22 high court rulings issued by the Turkish Court of Cassation and the Council of State concerning alleged malpractice following lumbar disc herniation surgery. The legal decisions reviewed represented appeals submitted after local court verdicts and were systematically evaluated to identify recurring judicial considerations and medico-legal themes. The first author holds dual qualifications as a neurosurgeon and an attorney-at-law, providing a distinctive medico-legal perspective that bridges clinical practice and judicial analysis.</p> Results <p>The analysis demonstrated that the judiciary places particular emphasis on several recurrent factors that determine liability. Among these, accurate history-taking and comprehensive clinical examination were consistently highlighted as the foundation of appropriate diagnosis and treatment. The courts also underscored the necessity of using suitable diagnostic imaging to establish surgical indication and to justify operative intervention. Furthermore, meticulous surgical technique, intraoperative diligence, and detailed documentation of every step of the process were regarded as critical indicators of professional responsibility. Comprehensive patient information and properly obtained informed consent were likewise viewed as essential to prevent disputes. Finally, attention to postoperative care, including early recognition and management of complications, and adequate follow-up were closely associated with favorable judicial outcomes for physicians.</p> Conclusion <p>By adhering to the standards highlighted in these judicial rulings, physicians can substantially reduce their <b>criminal</b>,<b> civil</b>,<b> and administrative liability</b>. Greater awareness of these medico-legal expectations can promote safer neurosurgical practices, reinforce documentation and consent protocols, and foster a more transparent physician–patient relationship—ultimately strengthening legal protection in neurosurgical care.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Medicolegal analysis aimed at reducing malpractice in lumbar disc herniation surgery from the perspective of case examples encountered in neurosurgical practice

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月14日

查看全文
  • Fatih Cesur,
  • Abdullah Emre Taçyıldız,
  • Özden Erhan Sofuoğlu,
  • Erhan Emel

摘要

Background

Lumbar disc herniation surgery is among the most frequently performed procedures in neurosurgical practice, yet it remains one of the leading causes of medicolegal disputes. Understanding the judiciary’s perspective on such cases can provide valuable insights for improving both clinical decision-making and risk management.

Methods

This study analyzed 22 high court rulings issued by the Turkish Court of Cassation and the Council of State concerning alleged malpractice following lumbar disc herniation surgery. The legal decisions reviewed represented appeals submitted after local court verdicts and were systematically evaluated to identify recurring judicial considerations and medico-legal themes. The first author holds dual qualifications as a neurosurgeon and an attorney-at-law, providing a distinctive medico-legal perspective that bridges clinical practice and judicial analysis.

Results

The analysis demonstrated that the judiciary places particular emphasis on several recurrent factors that determine liability. Among these, accurate history-taking and comprehensive clinical examination were consistently highlighted as the foundation of appropriate diagnosis and treatment. The courts also underscored the necessity of using suitable diagnostic imaging to establish surgical indication and to justify operative intervention. Furthermore, meticulous surgical technique, intraoperative diligence, and detailed documentation of every step of the process were regarded as critical indicators of professional responsibility. Comprehensive patient information and properly obtained informed consent were likewise viewed as essential to prevent disputes. Finally, attention to postoperative care, including early recognition and management of complications, and adequate follow-up were closely associated with favorable judicial outcomes for physicians.

Conclusion

By adhering to the standards highlighted in these judicial rulings, physicians can substantially reduce their criminal, civil, and administrative liability. Greater awareness of these medico-legal expectations can promote safer neurosurgical practices, reinforce documentation and consent protocols, and foster a more transparent physician–patient relationship—ultimately strengthening legal protection in neurosurgical care.