Consent for spine surgery: an observational study

Background: The tension between the ideal of informed consent and the reality of the process is under‐investigated in spine surgery. Guidelines around consent imply a logical, plain‐speaking process with a clear endpoint, agreement and signature yet surgeons' surveys and patient interviews suggest that surgeons' explanation is anecdotally variable and patient understanding remains poor. To obtain a more authentic reflection of practice, spine surgeons obtaining ‘informed consent’ for non‐instrumented spine surgery were studied via video recording and risk/benefit discussions were analysed.

Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at a single neurosurgical institution. Twelve video recordings involving six surgeons obtaining an informed consent for non‐instrumented spine surgery were transcribed verbatim and blindly analysed using descriptive quantification and linguistic ethnography.

Results: Ten (83%) consultations discussed surgical benefit but less than half (41%) quantified the likelihood of benefit from surgery. The most discussed risks were nerve damage or paralysis (92%), bleeding (92%), infection (92%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (83%) and bowel and bladder dysfunction (75%). Surgeons commonly used a quantitative statement of risk (58%) but only half of the risks were explained in words patients were likely to understand.

Conclusions: This study highlights inconsistencies in the way spine surgeons explain risks and obtain informed consent for ‘simple’ spine procedures in a real‐world setting. There are wide disparities in the provision of informed consent, which may be encountered in other surgical fields. Direct observation and qualitative analysis can provide insights into the limitations of current informed consent practice and help guide future practice.