Unnecessary Diagnostics in Neurosurgery: Finding the Ethical Balance

Routine postoperative computed tomography scan after craniotomy: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

Over the last few years, the role of early postoperative computed tomography (EPOCT) after cranial surgery has been repeatedly questioned, but there is yet no consensus on the practice. We conducted a systematic review to address the usefulness of EPOCT in association with neurological examination after elective craniotomies compared to the neurological examination alone. Studies were eligible if they provided information about the number of patients scanned, how many were asymptomatic or presented neurological deterioration before the scan and how many of each of those groups had their management changed due to imaging findings. CTs had to be performed in the first 48 h following surgery to be considered early. Eight studies were included. The retrospective studies enrolled a total of 3639 patients, with 3737 imaging examinations. Out of the 3696 CT scans performed in asymptomatic patients, less than 0.8% prompted an intervention, while 100% of patients with neurological deterioration were submitted to emergency surgery. Positive predictive values of altered scans were 0.584 for symptomatic patients and 0.125 for the asymptomatic. The number of altered scans necessary to predict (NNP) one change in management for the asymptomatic patients was 8, while for the clinically evident cases, it was 1.71. The number of scans needed to diagnose one clinically silent alteration is 134.75, and postoperative imaging of neurologically intact patients is 132 times less likely to issue an emergency intervention than an altered neurological examination alone. EPOCT following elective craniotomy in neurologically preserved patients is not supported by current evidence, and CT scanning should be performed only in particular conditions. The authors have developed an algorithm to help the judgment of each patient by the surgeon in a resource-limited context.

The Pitfalls of Overtreatment: Why More Care is not Necessarily Beneficial

Overtreatment refers to interventions that do not benefit the patient, or where the risk of harm from the intervention is likely to outweigh any benefit the patient will receive. It can account for up to 30% of health care costs, and is increasingly recognised as a widespread problem across nations and within clinical and scientific communities. There are a number of inter-related factors that drive overtreatment including the expanding definition of diseases, advertising and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, how doctors are trained and remunerated, demands from patients (and their families) and the fear of complaints leading doctors to practise defensively. This paper discusses a number of ethical and practical issues arising from overtreatment that doctors and patients should be aware of. It also considers the flow-on effects of overtreatment such as the increased cost of care, increase in work load for health professionals, and wastage as resources are diverted from more genuine and pressing needs. In addition, there are references to a number of Medical Council of New Zealand statements about what good medical practice means in an environment of resource limitation. The paper concludes with a few measures that doctors and patients could take to reduce overtreatment but acknowledges that health care is extremely complex so it would be unrealistic to eliminate overtreatment entirely.