After a consultation between the member, the MDU expert and a barrister, the MDU continued to deny all allegations. As to the alleged cut to the biceps tendon during the operation, we contended that the member had been careful to identify its location before making any incision, and that dissection during the surgery was approximately 2cm away from the long head of the biceps tendon.

In any event, the tendon was behind a retractor for the majority of the surgery. In such circumstances the suggested 'inadvertent' cutting was extremely unlikely, and the delayed nature of the rupture of the biceps tendon three months after the surgery also indicated against an intra-operative cause.

The patient's solicitors continued to pursue the claim, leading to a joint meeting between the independent experts instructed by the MDU and those instructed by the patient's solicitors. Following the meeting the experts agreed on several points.

An arterial vessel identified and tied off during the surgical exploration when the haematoma was evacuated was, on a balance of probabilities, the cause of the patient's wound haematoma.
The arterial vessel was cut and started to bleed during the original surgery.
A proper inspection of the operative field before closing the wound at the time of the original surgery would have revealed any active bleeding.
A rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon was not a recognised complication of the surgery or of the standard deltopectoral surgical approach to the shoulder used in many shoulder surgeries.
On an empirical basis, there was a chronological relationship between the surgery and the subsequent development of the ruptured biceps.

Complications after shoulder surgery

Continue your professional development with the MDU

Complications after shoulder surgery