Select location
Membership information
0800 561 9000
Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Menu
Refine my search

Surgical emphysema in the neck leads to a claim

Post date: 05/06/2020 | Time to read article: 2 mins

The information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 05/06/2020

By Suzanne Tate, litigation solicitor, and Dr Clare Devlin, medicolegal consultant, Medical Protection

Ms R underwent a shoulder arthroscopy under general anaesthetic and consultant anaesthetist Dr E also administered an interscalene block prior to the surgery for pain relief. Postoperatively she developed a sore throat and hoarseness, and produced some blood-stained sputum, so she was kept in overnight. After discharge the following day, she contacted the hospital complaining of sore throat, difficulty swallowing and otalgia. On readmission, haemoptysis was recorded, together with a hoarse voice and bilateral neck crepitus. She was kept under close observation to ensure her airway was not compromised by the surgical emphysema, which later spread to her face and chest wall.

Over the months that followed she experienced alterations in her voice, which was rough, strained and breathy, and caused difficulty in her recreational singing in a choir. An ENT voice clinic diagnosed muscle tension dysphonia, a functional disorder of the laryngeal muscles, for which she underwent speech therapy, with partial improvement. She also complained of ongoing neck pain.

The claim

Ms R made a claim against Dr E for the discomfort she suffered.

Consultant anaesthetist and ENT experts tried to unpick the aetiology of this rare and unexpected complication. Ms R alleged a gross error in needling when Dr E administered the interscalene block, puncturing her trachea and causing the surgical emphysema. This explanation was never accepted by our experts.

Firstly, such a complication has never been reported for an interscalene block. Secondly, there were a number of logical arguments why this was highly unlikely to have been the explanation. The length of the needle used by Dr E meant it was unlikely the tip of the needle would have reached Ms R’s trachea from its entry point – certainly not without inserting the needle right up to its hub and probably applying further pressure.

For the needle to reach the trachea from its point of entry, it is likely to have passed through the carotid artery and surrounding structures, which would have caused immediate and significant complications, which did not occur during Ms R’s surgery. Also, the tip of the needle used was so fine that a simple puncture was unlikely to have been sufficient to allow air to escape. The trachea is sometimes punctured with a needle for other therapeutic reasons and this does not lead to surgical emphysema. Our ENT expert thought the tip of the needle would have had to have been used to scrape the trachea in a knife-like motion in order to cause a laceration sufficient to allow air to escape.

Experts on both sides had ruled out a pneumothorax, or air escaping from insufflation of the surgical site in the shoulder, as possible causes.

The remaining and most likely explanation was a rupture of the trachea during intubation. Whilst rare, this is a recognised and usually non-negligent complication of intubation. This explanation was not accepted by Ms R’s experts, but if this explanation had been preferred by a court Ms R would have asserted this was also negligent. There, was, however, no evidence of any negligence on Dr E’s part during the intubation period.

Outcome

We defended the claim in full and made no offers at any time. Ms R pursued her claim for three years, right up until the days before a full trial, when she discontinued her claim. Dr E was happy with the level of expertise and robust support from his Medical Protection legal team, who were determined to fight the case at a full trial if needed.

Learning point

From time to time unusual complications occur in medical treatment, but this does not necessarily mean there has been negligence. The onus is on a claimant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the clinician acted in a way no ordinarily competent clinician would have done if providing ordinary care.

Share this article

Share
Load more reviews
Rating

You've already submitted a review for this item

|
New site feature tour

Introducing an improved
online experience

You'll notice a few things have changed on our website. After asking our members what they want in an online platform, we've made it easier to access our membership benefits and created a more personalised user experience.

Why not take our quick 60-second tour? We'll show you how it all works and it should only take a minute.

Take the tour Continue to site

Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Membership information
0800 561 9000

Key contact details

Should you need to contact us, our phone numbers are always visible.

Personalise your search

We'll save your profession in the "I am a..." dropdown filter for next time.

Tour completed

Now you've seen all of the updated features, it's time for you to try them out.

Continue to site
Take again