[Allergic reactions to knee prostheses from the viewpoint of a trauma surgeon of the "Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung" (MDK)].
The problems arising during the assessment of accused malpractice regarding the implantation of a knee prosthesis in a patient with a known nickel allergy are illustrated with an example. The elementary interrelations between malpractice assessment and civil law are referred to. The importance of giving detailed information to patients with a proved nickel allergy about complications in the use of standard prosthesis material is pointed out. The uncertain data situation and the problem of inadequate information in the case of a legal conflict demands a clear statement from the associations of orthopedic surgery about how to handle this subject matter in daily practice.
Zamzow
H
H
Geschäftsbereich Behandlungsfehler, MDKN, Am Schwingedeich 2b, 21680, Stade, Deutschland. Hanno.Zamzow@mdkn.de
D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006967:Hypersensitivity / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000601:surgery; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D007720:Knee Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects*; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009532:Nickel / Q000009:adverse effects*; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000601:surgery*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000601:surgery; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D012086:Reoperation; D013585:Synovitis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery; D014025:Titanium
C041500:titanium nitride; D009532:Nickel; D014025:Titanium